Video 32

Ask Swami with Swami Sarvapriyananda | Feb 25th, 2018

so now we will we are going into the recession of the question and answers first I would like you to reflect on the experience we just had and ask any question that comes to your mind any observation a question so what you would like to say something or are you all blissed out please come here to tell us your name and then ask my marriage my name is my name is Sangeeta from New York about this meditation that we just did I was wondering what might be the difference in keeping your eyes shut versus keeping them open because ultimately if you are taking in everything and we are just focusing on the awareness that's aware of everything yes I would think it would be the same whether your eyes are open or shut so is there any advantage I don't think you to keep your eyes open and shut in principle no difference in Advaitic meditation but remember what we just did relaxation listen then sink into that awareness we did that because usually we dwell in our minds and bodies so when your eyes are open the mind is very active it's very difficult to step back into the ever present reality so that's why just as an entry like just as a gateway it helps to keep the eyes shut it helps to relax when you are listening it's the mind which is active but we are using the listening as a stepping stone back into the background consciousness that consciousness is always present once you get the habit of noticing it and centering yourself there the ideal would be that it is always there when the eyes are open when the eyes are closed when you are trying to meditate when your meditating when you are walking in the in the you know the park outside wherever you are whatever you are doing that awareness is there all the time to know that you see we are using the mind to Center ourselves in that awareness even that centering is a kind of practice right that centering also is something that you need not do later on once you are aware of it once you know what you were talking about then you know it's always available anybody else would like to say something yes please come no you have to come here please sit there tell us your name is there tell us your name hello my name is mamita my question is a very dumb question sharmaji I have problems because when I closed up close my eyes and if I open my eyes to different opening my eyes I never can see the light I don't know I wonder sir what if all right but really we knew deeply all right stop stop right there stop right stop right there stop right there note what she said it's an important point when I opened my eyes and when I closed my eyes there's a big difference right here is where we must distinguish the two approaches to meditation one approach will tell you as she just said when I close my eyes I see the light when I open my eyes I just cannot write that is the traditional approach to meditation to close the eyes and focus is open the eyes you cannot focus are you with me so far now follow this carefully the statement she made was I see a great difference when I close my eyes and open my eyes what is it that notices the difference what is it she said mind what is it that just said mind there is something which notices the difference open my eyes scattered mind active mind impossible to meditate close my eyes it is possible with some effort to meditate the one which saw this difference that one is it scattered is it steady always the one which notices the difference between meditative mind and scattered mind closed eyes and organized that one is it scattered or meditative right or neither this Advaitic meditation is pointing to that in a dramatic meditation also preliminary it is useful to close the mind as we just did and experience it in words but that is not the point the it is useful to see through alright can we have a question from the internet audience thank you five the five questions yes does pure consciousness have intention or is it my own realization of pure consciousness that creates circumstances for my earthly form of pure consciousness pure consciousness consciousness in itself does not have any intention intention comes when there is the overlay of the mind but remember interestingly the mind cannot function without the awareness pure consciousness awareness Atman emptiness clear light of the void all synonymous the witness consciousness all synonymous it does not have an intention there's a interesting technical term called intentionality in philosophy it's used in the philosophy of phenomenology which was developed by us Earl Edmund Husserl early in the 20th century basically what he pointed out was all our thoughts are about something right now even your thoughts about meditation they're about what meditation so all our thoughts are about something this being about something is called intentionality it's a useful concept it can we can use it not in the way who certainly intended but to distinguish intentionality from the pure consciousness consciousness itself by the way pure consciousness is not that something it is was impure now it has been purified scrubbed clean no consciousness in itself is always pure pure in the same sense that it transcends the mind it is not the mind not the changing mind in that sense pure pure consciousness or this awareness the light of awareness has no intention ality it is non intentional awareness that itself gets coined into intentionality when the mind starts working when the mind works senses work body works then you have intentionality yes next question if I got this right you said that from a dream state the world of the known sort of pops into existence but does not really exist outside that state thus it would mean I create my own world which includes you and all other beings and things that I perceive if so why can't I see the world from your perspective where you are the dwelling in my waking dream I should be able to see the self creation from various perspectives not just through one mind and one set of sense organs let's take that alright if you have followed the question it's a question which comes to everybody sometimes if you think about waking dreaming and deep sleep now let's take the first part of the question if you listen carefully you will see he saw he said if I understood you correctly you said I am creating the world if our waking is like dreaming dreaming obviously I create my dream so in waking if it's like dreaming then I am creating this world let's stop right there you're mixing up two things waking and dreaming you see in dreaming in a dream you are there in your own dream are you not you are a person there in the dream world and you do not call it a dream world for you that's like waking you do you have no clue that you are dreaming usually and the person who is there in that dream world which you call a dream world only after waking up in that world when you are there that one you in your dream is not the creator of the dream it's just like a person in this world just like you don't feel you're creating this world similarly you in your dream you don't feel that you are creating the world you rather feel I'm here and there's a world outside me which I am interacting with with me so that person in the dream does not create the dream world it's only from the wakers perspective you realize that all of the dream world and the people and the things and the places and the events including I myself who was there in the dream playing one character all of that was imagined in my mind that's only after waking up similarly here also Advaita does not say you the individual person Girish is asking the question or server Prien under this person is creating the world oh no no no only from the perspective of consciousness or awareness is that true from pure consciousness or awareness or the Atman is that true is that true that awareness distinguished from the mind just as the wakers mind creates the dream world here also in the waking world it is the pure consciousness or such which generates this world including the subject and the object you the subject and the object both are our superimpositions or names and forms appearing on the background of pure consciousness only from the perspective of pure consciousness is the word generated imagined projected not from the perspective of the person Girish or the person server prion under okay the second part was why can't I see it from your perspective then but you see in the dream world also you cannot see it from all perspectives in your dreams imagine a particular dream which you had tried to recall there were other people and you are also there and you saw those other people only from your perspective not from their perspective although when you wake up you realize all of them are in your mind similarly when we get enlightened we realize all beings are appearances in one consciousness but when you function as a person people will call you an enlightened first person but you will still function from your perspective people ask here if I'm one consciousness in all beings then why do I not know your mind and just as I know this mind why do I not know all the other minds here follow this carefully you are mixing up consciousness and the knower in sanskrit the words are very clear Sakshi and pramatta Sark she is the witness consciousness promoter is the witness consciousness plus mind right now we are functioning as what we have been in a moment the word comes functioning you are consciousness plus mind the moment you bring in mind the sense organs and the body and everything is bought in the person comes alive so when you say I know my mind who's saying that not pure consciousness it's the pramatta the knower who is saying that and that knower is limited fortunately unfortunately to one body and mind each body and mind functions in the light of that one pure consciousness which we all really are but when we try to think about it you are already at the level of the mind therefore you will not be able to think through all minds through all bodies in fact I had this very touching and very sad episode I got a mail from a gentleman of several years ago when I was in India this person do you remember a Malaysian Airlines aircraft was shot down one was lost in the ocean and just a few months later another was shot down by a missile over Ukraine and this gentleman wrote to me saying that the plane was flying from I think our Netherlands or somewhere and stirred them or something to Malaysia probably somewhere in the Belgium emphases in one of those countries to to Malaysia and it got shot down over Ukraine this gentleman said he was writing from I think Amsterdam or something said my girlfriend was on that plane and she died like everybody else now is listening to your talk is it possible for me to know the last thoughts in her mind if I'm consciousness I should be able to just answer no my own thoughts should I can I ever know the thoughts of other people and this person also and I had to reply alas no when you say no nor you're talking as that person and your girlfriend is another person the contents of that mind were known to that nor the contents of this mind are known to this nor both are equally lit up by that background consciousness you see why this question arises again and again is because we are unable as yet to distinguish between mind and consciousness we think we have understood Swami I did the non-dualistic meditation now I no other time I where is all this is mind it's the mind talking if a clarity begins to come between the background consciousness and the mind you would drop the mind and you will not ask mind like questions can I know the perspective can I know the thoughts in another person's mind just as I know the thoughts in this person's mind who is asking this question awareness or no mind the mind not awareness you still have not taken the perspective of awareness all right often dreams come and go and urgent and are generally not the same implying that the entity in one dream did not get the results of their karma in another dream his an individuals come in my dream the result of my action or is it something else if it is the results of my action then by the same logic why don't these comas get assigned to me in a waking state as there is no real distinction between dream and waking state it should be assigned to the dreamer of the waking state or path or perhaps some other entity my first response to that is don't get entangled in all of this right you'll get into a hopeless mental entanglement I'll give you the answer to that just for your satisfaction but the question is about karma in the dream versus karma in the wake first thing I'll give you a key to understanding Advaita Vedanta adwaita talks about different levels of reality often our confusions arise because we mix up levels of reality our questions arise because we mix up levels of reality what our levels of reality you see by mistake you see a rope as a snake the Rope is at one level of reality and the snake which you see is it another a lower level of reality so Advaita speaks of say for example three levels of reality the absolute in Sanskrit para martica the only thing that is the absolute is Brahman or Atman or the awareness or pure consciousness all one and the same thing that's the absolute the second level of reality which where Dante speaks about is the transactional or the empirical or the relative via Baja Rica what is Veronica right here right now the Rope is part of viva Hanukkah reality right now we are sitting here and talking in about question and answers and we're thinking all the all of this is via Baja Rica the errors that we have in the wave ahora Coriolis like the making mistaking the Rope for a snake that's a third level of reality an even lower level of reality which is called prati Waseca which means illusion your appearance so your waking is via Baja Rica your dreaming is pretty farcical the Rope belongs to your waking reality we have a ha Rica relative reality and the snake belongs to the level of error or dream or illusion which is protopathic on the rope cannot be a snake really the Rope cannot be a snake the Rope is really a rope and in error it's a snake right so now what happens in dream stays at the level of dream it's like saying like saying why doesn't the Karma of the dream continue in the waking State it's like saying why doesn't the poison of the snake poison the Rope the rope appeared as a snake it's a very poisonous snake so it is a rope poisonous or not no it is not it is not because the Rope is not a snake at all when in our transactional relative reality in the error it's a snake in our relative reality it's a rope it is nothing to do whatsoever to do with the snake and in the absolute standpoint what is it it's none other than Brahman is not even a rope it is the absolute now what happens at one level of reality cannot influence what happens at a higher level of reality at a deeper or more fundamental level of reality so the poison of a snake in the in the error does not poison the rope in reality [Music] Shankaracharya puts it very beautifully in one of his commentaries the water of a mirage all the entire lake an oasis you see in a mirage cannot wet even a grain of the deserts and all that water is not enough to wet even one grain of the desert scent in the same way all your miseries sufferings and sin and guilt has not the slightest effect on the witness consciousness they are dreams to it at the level of the witness consciousness you are perfect right now you are immortal you are beyond sin beyond damage beyond death in the bhagavad-gita the first teaching that Krishna gives Arjuna is your real self oh prince is immortal he was never born will never die souls cannot cut it the water cannot dry it a character water cannot drown it the fire cannot burn it because water fire swords all of that is what they're Maha Rika reality relative reality the real self is what param arctic absolute reality absolute reality relative reality delusional error dream illusion all of that Preity Massacre literally means appearance varaha Rica means transactional para martica means absolute so I did some karma in the dream it's a dream it's Pratibha seeker you didn't do it with respect to your Vera Haruka I insulted this guy in my dream now I'm afraid to meet him will he be mad at me no he has no recollection of you insulting him because you didn't it was entirely in your mind you don't have to go and apologize to him it has no effect at all on that person because that person now belongs to your relative reality but all of what happens in this relative reality has no effect on Brahman the pure consciousness which is present right here which you are all the time which is that background awareness it's very close to us it's the closest of the close Shankar Acharya says in India issue open assured it says it's further than the farthest and nearer than the nearest how can it be nearer than the nearest and father than the farthest the commentator Shankar Acharya writes it's nearer than the nearest because it is your own self it is you yourself to whom to the one who knows and is further than the farthest to the one who is in ignorance the difference is not in distance it's in knowledge in knowing and not knowing the difference is not in time that if God is not here God is after death in heaven now and then no no the difference is knowing and not knowing so karma belongs to which plain transactional correct the varaha rica transactional empirical relative via baja rica plain karma is there you'll be interested to know karma is one of the fundamental planks supports of hinduism buddhism all the indian philosophies they all accept the theory of karma without reservation and Shankar Acharya talks about Karma and in one place in the brahma so that more than one place but one place i remember clearly cuts it down in no uncertain terms so you will see is karma real or not question which plane are you asking from the Karma of the dream is real as far as the dream goes is unreal as far as you're waking goes the worst of karma that you have done and the best of karma that you have done in your dream has no effect on your waking state and the karma that you do here has absolutely no effect on Brahman on the eye on the absolute on such hidden under there because that karma belongs to the transactional level now don't ask what about Karma at the absolute level at the absolute level there is no Karma there is no Karma waving under put it directly good good bad bad and none escaped the law what is this law of karma but whosoever wears a farm must wear the chain - what is the chain the foreign-born means this body it is produced by our karma prarabdha karma so here we are subject to that chain our lives will proceed on a narrow track it will proceed on this narrow track and what will happen on this path is because of our past Karma of course we have freewill to respond to it as we as we and that will that will generate further Karma which track you will get switched to knit next but and and extending that metaphor God is the one who does the shunting I don't in Indian Railways do that this is a guy who does the shunting who shunts your train from this track to that track change changes the track but from the absolute point of view there is no Karma absolutely no karma all right oh I'm sorry sorry to interrupt you let me complete the quotation from Vivekananda good good bad bad and none escaped the law but whosoever wears a farm must wear that wear the chain - very good up to that conventional religion karma but where does Vedanta come in where doesn't waiter come in next line he says but far beyond far beyond name-and-form is the Atman ever free that thou art sannyasi would say ohm that's a tome right now we know what he means if you got even a bit of that meditation of the background awareness and the sounds and all the experiences of your life floating by the experiences of your life the people and the things and the thoughts and what you say what you do whatever is happening in your awareness all those things are past Karma generating all of that the awareness the unchanging light which you are is the ultimate that's ever free completely untouched by karma as the bright blue sky is untouched by clouds floating past that thou art right now you will see no no but this problem that problem who is saying this problem that problem mind subject to Karma are not very much so forget the mind let's go this is from Annika in Germany the experience in deep sleep is the experience of the absence of experience because the mind is not active when I wake I know I slept peacefully to come to this conclusion I used my mind because there are no stored memories about a dream available for me to process I can only know my inactive mind through my active mind to me this is a paradox could it be I am dreaming all the time while sleeping but I only remember a dream I had just before waking up I'm sure you can't help me clarify this paradox all right that's a good question about the deep sleep state in sanskrit sushupti the phrase she used was in deep sleep we have an there's an absence of experience I always preferred the other way round it's an experience of absence it's an experience of absence but still her main question stands the mind is inactive how do I recall how do I get up and say that I slept peacefully I didn't know anything it's like that as she says active mind trying to recall an inactive mind how did that happen the question here is if it is an experience of absence and the mind is inactive you need the mind to have experiences so if the mind is inactive what experienced and what recorded it he's asking then is that the was I dreaming all throughout now the answer in dante's this this question has been raised the answer is this normally when I experience the world it is consciousness plus mind and of course plus sense organs plus the body in the world that's our normal experience of the waking world what's our experience of the dream world it is consciousness plus mind sense organs are not working you cannot contact the external world its consciousness and the mind on in the mind if the mind churning turns out dreams and the consciousness ill you means those dreams it's in the mind now when the mind becomes inactive it goes into a potential state it's a result state that is called deep sleep consciousness still there shining now that's another kind of experience all these experiences we're experiences of things events there in sanskrit the word is precise power some things with their manifestation now deep sleep is an experience of the unmanifest it's an experience of absence it's like your your eyes are open now you're seeing all of this close your eyes you can't see anything isn't it a kind of seeing also huh that blankness that darkness but aren't you seeing it after a fashion you can open your eyes now aren't you seeing after a fashion either isn't that also kind of it let me put it this way when you when you open your eyes you are experiencing with me so far when you're opening your eye eyes are open now you're experiencing when you close your eyes are you experiencing or not that's also an experience so that's an experience of a power evolve a literally in sanskrit means absence absence of what of all things that's all so experienced similarly in deep sleep you have an experience of absence now the question remains how is that experience recorded if it's an experience and we seem to recall that experience but they can't be memories because the mind is not functioning true Vedanta says it is recorded in a Ghana itself in ignorance itself the potential state of the mind is capable of recording changes the absence of experiences is recorded in that potential state of the mind but it's a very different kind of recording when you have some experience for example you had this experience and you will go back and recall this question answer session session you saw it you heard it and you can recall it from memory so what will be a recollection I was there I heard this I saw this but when you recall the deep sleep state you don't recall it that way you don't recall it as I was there and I slept peacefully no if you recall it that way then you are new you did not sleep that was not sleep right it is just a feeling that I did not know anything a blank miss a nothingness that's all the difference is when the mind is functioning at that moment you have the feeling I am seeing this I am hearing this when the mind is resolved you don't have a feeling at that point that I am in deep sleep because that I am in deep sleep is a thought which cannot be formulated if you are in deep sleep because the mind is not working so your answer to your question is yes it is an experience but an experience for different kind it's an experience of abhava an experience of absence and that is recorded in our gianna in ignorance wants to know when i'm in deep sleep and my mind is shut down who is looking after my body by who's controlled bodily functions such as heartbeat breathing digestion it's that sure happened what is the ground of existence of my body in the world where does it exist how am I able to come back to my body only not to any other body all right so can you see how we are mixing up two levels of experience deep sleep dream on one hand and the physical body waking body on the other hand there are different levels of experience when you are in deep sleep what does it mean it means that you are not aware of your physical body that body is not part of your deep sleep experience or the absence of experience there or the experience of absence even when you are dreaming your physical body is lying on the bed and it's not part of your dream right only when you are awake is the physical body part of your experience so that's from your subjective point of view objectively what happens very simple the physical body is a living entity as long as life is there it is from way with anther perspective it is prana which is maintaining the body think about it even when you are awake right now when we are awake are we maintaining the body how much of the digestion and the breathing and how much of that is done by us and the beating of the heart and the the hormones in the body and the enzymes and blood circulation how much of it is done by us almost nothing even the greatest of hatay Yogi's can regain control over some parts of their autonomic functioning the rest of it is done by prakruti nature mother nature takes care of it how does Mother Nature take care of it through prana in gita itis there is a verse Prakriti eva karmani kriyamanani service' university without mana occurred tarom so partially they saw one thing which Bhagwan Krishna in the Gita has said thrice I think in the fourth chapter 13 chapter 18 chapter 1 point he has made tries it is this everything in the body in the world is being done by Nature one who realizes that realizes that I am not the doer and the witness self this thing Krishna's repeated three times in the Bhagavad Gita even in the waking state you don't maintain the body the body is maintained by nature by life itself it's an automatic process it's a mechanical process it's some biological machine all right is there a question from the live audience please come Anthony yes but still repeat your name for the benefit of the inter kiss is on or it's on yeah Anthony his question now from the mind I guess yes say somebody practices really well you know and they realize their true self in this lifetime their pure consciousness Brahman and so then they have the Maha Samadhi and so now they're in their true self yessum prominence so from that is there any interest or is there any choice is it possible for them to say visit the highest heaven brahmaloka which I know I heard exists or visit again to this appearance world the physical world again if they have to it anyone have a choice alright let's deal with that question the question was that suppose somebody becomes enlightened I am Brahman a humdrum asked me realizes I am NOT the body and mind and existence consciousness bliss this immortal self I am always have been and will always be now then what Anthony said was well when Mohammed he comes Mohammed he comes means the enlightened person gives up the body death of the body till that point what will happen that person the the others who will see this person when we see this person from outside will say this is an enlightened person if we do recognize him that person does not see himself as an enlightened person what does that person see himself as Brahman that person sees himself as Brahman right not as an enlightened person but we see that person as an in person we will call that person Jeevan Muktha enlightened while living and there's another term with a himoto when that person's body finally drops off when that person dies we says is liberated has reached bodyless liberation now this living liberated why living and liberated bodyless liberation Jeevan Mukti and videhamukti these are our categories these are philosophical categories these do not apply to the enlightened person that enlightened person sees that I am Brandon liberated by living liberated after the death of the body immaterial to that person point one point to this question of coming and going the question was can he go to the highest heaven brahmaloka this question of coming and going no longer applies to the liberated person even the highest heaven brahmaloka is within Maya it's a wonderful state but still within Maya it's still within form whenever you have coming and going do you feel you are in brahmaloka now just know I'm in Manhattan that's as close to brahmaloka you can get in a way on planet Earth if you feel you are not in Rama locker then it's it's a place you will go to I saw this big billboard heaven is a place it says heaven is a place you will get there when you die if there is a place you have to go to that is short of enlightenment that's still not enlightenment if you are enlightened there is no place you have to go to no time we have to wait for does the person who's enlightened while living wait for bodyless liberation no doesn't wait stayin of the body dropping of the body in material to that person so yes that thing will not apply to what you said going to brahmaloka does not apply to a person who has all who is already enlightened in Vedanta did speak about two tracks one is enlightened here and now that's what everybody aims at you have free but there are those who lead a solid religious life meditate moral virtuous devotional and not reached enlightenment at the point of death they go to higher heavens and they had the opportunity of going to brahmaloka and pursuing further spiritual practice till they get enlightenment but that's this that's the scenic route getting enlightenment right here is the dad is a direct result of of knowledge so this one the direct one is attained through knowledge I am Brahman that one you're speaking about going to heaven - heaven higher heavens is attained through devotion through they say you pass on our worship so that's also had that also happens that you have to take with faith this one is directly a result of knowledge you know it here and now this is what you have to aim for just by chance we don't get it this life don't worry Krishna says in the bhagavad-gita that track is still open to you that will happen so that the Krishna says there is no loss on this path on the path to enlightenment there is no loss one more point and I'm done with that question this may seem little shocking an extension to that question would be while living there is a body and there's a mind and you know that I have this knowledge I am Brahman and you can talk about it you can teach you can interact and you will have experiences just like we are having after enlightenment does that thing continue the answer is No does that person still feel I am an enlightened person at least no consciousness exists by itself you see this consciousness which we are aware of right now is like a fire which has been lit it's not you not the real you the real you reflected in the mind lights the fire of this this reflected consciousness it's called China Haase it continues as long as a body and mind continue in fact it quietens down every day in the night when we sleep imagine your deep sleep state no world no body no thought no personality but darkness ignorant drop the darkness there and you will realize what pure consciousness is drop the darkness of deep sleep and you are enlightened do it now here not in deep sleep you can't do it in deep sleep so in the state of liberation that individualized consciousness which will say to itself I am liberated no that's gone forever it's a fire which was lit it burns out into embers and it is it's gone it's called Nirvana Nirvana means we the wiping out the cleaning of the slate somebody asked the Buddha after death where will you be where will you go and Buddha said to the disciple Oh monk if a fire is fire is blown out will you say it has gone to the east no to the west to the north to the south no don't think that nothing will be left the reality which always was is will continue to be left you will remain as that as infinitude no longer this limited little flickering fire of individualized awareness that will go yes Thank You Anthony and now we have something completely different so ammiji this is from Neal on Neal and John in Kolkata who has a question on sentient robots sentient robots okay that's a difference one recently I came across the concept of sentient robots people are saying that we may be able to create sentient robots in the future theoretically I think it is possible but in that case how can one harmonize it with the adviser philosophy advisor says anything which is sentient must have consciousness which is the real self and Rama but if a sentient object can be artificially produced what would be the nature of consciousness of that sentient robot all right a good one but here you see there are several issues involved but I'll point out the core issue first creation of a sentient entity is not equal to creation of consciousness what Advaita would say is what is a sentient entity sentient entity means conscious entity and entity which is aware you might think what are they like like you like me like us we are sentient beings now what are we in in that draytek framework we are actually pure consciousness plus mind and the consciousness reflected in the mind functioning in a nervous system which is embedded in a body rhythm with the body mind got this body mind complex so it's basically consciousness functioning through a body mind complex which is called a sentient entity the moment that this mind is lit up by consciousness then it's called a sentient entity I'll give you an example take a mirror look into a mirror what do you have you can see your face in the mirror what do you have you have three things there one is your original face second is the mirror and third reflected face your face reflected in the mirror you know what is the sentient entity that mirror with its reflected face that reflection was not created by the mirror it's the very nature of the mirror to reflect whatever is in front of it since your beautiful face is in front of it it gets reflected immediately in the mirror the mirror did not create that face it just created a reflection the face existed before the mirror and before the reflection the face will exist after the mirror and after the reflection the face exists during the mirror in the reflection completely untouched by the mirror in the reflection look whatever goes on in the mirror has nothing to do with the original face exactly like that original consciousness the pure consciousness is reflected in the mind called reflected consciousness the mind shines with that reflected consciousness original consciousness pure consciousness existed before the mind and the reflected consciousness will exist after the mind shuts down in deep sleep or in death pure consciousness continues to exist and during the functioning of the mind with its reflected consciousness when the mind functions pure consciousness continues to exist completely untouched like the original face it is that mind with its reflected consciousness which is called a sentient entity from an operatic perspective all right so we are all sentient entities the mind and the reflected consciousness actually we are the pure consciousness this is what advaitha wants to say in ignorance we think we are mind body with consciousness in knowledge we realize we are consciousness shining upon a body and mind completely untouched by body and mind now coming to sentient robots I think there are more people in the audience who can answer this better than I can we are talking about this yesterday for yesterday with a scientist from IBM and they are working on artificial intelligence can you make an artificial system complex enough are subtle enough to reflect consciousness but the waiter says mind is made of sukshma buta tan Matra which has the ability to reflect consciousness channel consciousness limit consciousness and use consciousness pure consciousness remaining untouched if you can ever generate something like the mind in your laboratory what will you be able to do reflect consciousness then you would have a sentient entity but that sentient entity does not mean you have produced consciousness no more than the mirror produces the original face right but would that sentient entity be like us in principle yes why not alright question from the cab please come so my name is hemant yes you just mentioned that there are two paths discussed in advaitha one is the realization right now through knowledge yes and other eases you said a scenic path will take a kind of a long path with a faith and hope to devotion a new passion of worship yes how is there any advice you can give on which path is the right path based on personality or background Advaita says both one is not again against the other in order to attain knowledge one must go through the path of devotion and worship as a practical necessity what about directly directly also possible but you start out try it you will find your it's easier if you have a devotional practice the supposing knowledge is not generated in this lifetime you all you still have the entire credit of your devotional practices a lifetime's balance of that and that will propel you to those higher heavens and then you get you keep getting chances Hinduism says you have infinite number of chances vacant this said half jokingly half seriously take your time which is not which is a bit of a relief and a bit of a threat it's much better to get it over and done with now but the whole process Advaita Vedanta classical Advaita Vedanta is not against conventional religion it is built on a superstructure of conventional religion it goes beyond conventional religion transcends conventional religion but it's not against conventional religion if you worship God if you love God if you chant the name of God we are singing chant the name of the Lord unceasingly is it wrong of course not should I do it of course it can never do any harm will it do some good it will do a lot of good will it help me in my path of knowledge certainly so both are to be to be combined in in the best possible way that's the best option a funny aside here I remember about 25 years ago when I was a novice those are this another novice with us it's a funny chap he finally left the order but he remained a monk he struck it struck out on his own his bit of a rebel all the time a simple guy from a village he was reading all these this path and that path in the path through the different heavens this loka that look and so and so forth and in Hinduism you have different locusts but in a local Indra loca and all of that up to brahmaloka which is the highest heaven so one day at night we would walk with the abbot of the monastery the head of the monastery and we would ask our questions to novices we would get to ask our questions and we would have to would also have to recite a shloka from the Gita so every day we have to memorize a particular shloka from the Gita and then you have to tell the recited and then tell the meaning and the Swami of course knew the whole Gita by heart so we had all assigned different chapters we had had one chapter and the brahma charlie had different so we would we would chant them we try to chant the gita from memory and at the beginning it was difficult to remember even one verse by memorizing one verse per day but just to give give you a feel of this novice whom I'm speaking about it was always a bit of a rebel and he thought in his own way he said this is easy we were chanting a bogota verse I'll memorize 10 verses in a day so first day he did it and at night he recited 10 verses and the Swami he said take it easy and do something that is maintainable and that was right the next day it was two verses and third day it was half hours anyway that apart one day his question to the Swami was swabbing can i when I go to after death when I go to Ramakrishna loka the aboard of Sri Ramakrishna can I visit Interlochen the other other heavens and the Swami said why would you want to do that just sort of you know show off and just you know sort of subdue them in Bengali said dominated with this to to to scold them and that word means scolding bullying chastising them he was a bit of a stronger man sir so everybody all burst out laughing yeah there are different different there's supposed to be different kinds of heavens and you go there depending on how much of a good boy or girl you are being so you you go to these different heavens but all of these heavens with the exception of brahmaloka all of these heavens you have to come back but brahmaloka which is variously called why cantar and kailasha or the heaven of the Christians of the muslims or the jews or or ramakrishna loca which we call all of that is brahmaloka from there you evolve further you don't have to come back to this world unless one has desires all right thank you I'll take up your question next first a question from the Internet audience pronounced from Jonathan in Venice California you assert that even for those striving to realize the truth of advisor some form of worship of God is necessary oh that's a segue nicely into addition this question from your question yes it appears to me that devotional worship of God or Brahman seems irrational from the point of view of advisor that is Brahman is real the world is an appearance and each Jeeva is actually Brahma so if if we engage in traditional worship of God or Brahman then we are de facto worshipping ourselves which is absurd it's like petitioning a king for consideration when the king is in fact us who is petitioning who even from the point of view of Patanjali of Satyam were non lying or sincerity than having mutually contradictory practices or beliefs would violate the yoga path as well the yogi path as well how can one worship God is Heavenly Father Krishna etc if one feels in their heart that the distinction between the worshipper and the worshiped is force and appearance this sure seems duplicitous and insincere to me all right the question resonates it's a good question first of all johnathan straight answer you're right there's no problem with that logically philosophically the position you have taken is a position it's a position and it is taken by traditional non Duellists in India too there are those who do that but so having said that now let's go deeper into the question there are practical grounds and philosophical grounds for the worship of God that's what I'll I'll reply to this question practical grounds and philosophical grounds to first of all philosophically speaking one thing one must be clear about the worship of God and Advaita are not on the same level of reality do you remember what we discussed about levels of reality when you say Brahman is real what level is it absolute relative or illusionary which one Brahman is real from the absolute point of view right the world is a false an appearance from the absolute point of view I am Brahman from the apse point of view but when I if I worship God I have a puja and a Krishna or a Christ before me at what level am i doing it transactional relative or varaha Rica level the two levels are not the same so worship of God at the verónica level does not contradict the absoluteness of Brahman Brahman is real the world is an appearance you are Brahman absolutely true relatively that Brahman being identified with the body and mind worshiping God who is the father who is the mother who is Krishna who is Christ perfectly alright are you with me so far let me put it this way even here a doubt might persist Jonathan might ask granted if somebody's at the relative point of view that person can worship God but Advaita Vedanta speaks about the absolute so from the absolute point of view we should not at all speak about worshipping of God you should only keep on speaking about Brahman being real and the world being an appearance and you are prominent let me say this from the point of view of absolute also if you are a committed non duelist Jonathan do you eat do you walk do you talk do you put on clothes do you exercise do you talk to people you do everything else in the world which are all dualistic practices your acting as a body and a mind for all practical purposes now what harm has poor God done to you that I will do everything dualistic in this world except going to Temple or Church now let me resolve this tangle it's a very simple resolution act the resolution is this this is the key I'll give you the key I'll give you the key the key is reality of non-duality is does not contradict experience of duality this has been mentioned in pancha she also after you realize that the sky there's no blue color in the sky it's an appearance when you look up at the sky what do you see blue sky now when you look at the blue sky do you say the sky is really blue no you know it's not blue it looks that way the experience of the blue sky and the reality of the colored colorless sky can they exist together yes to counter how can something be colorless and blue at the same time only because of different levels only because it's really colorless and appears to be blue right if the sky was really really blue how could the same sky be red sometimes how could it be black sometimes how could it even be colorless no really it's colorless and it appears black at night it appears blue in the morning it appears red at sunset appears because of the scattering of light we know the physics the optics of it exactly in the same way non duality is reality or appearance it's reality non duality advaitha is reality and dueto is appearance you know what is contradictory really duality and real non duality or contradictory am i really separate from God and I'm I really wanted God contradictory obviously logically contradictory but am I really one with God and I appeared to be separate fine there's no problem with it you know when two persons worship God and one says I am a non duelist and the other one says I'm a duelist you know what's the difference difference is philosophically the dualist says here I am worshipping my lord he is my father or she is my mother and I am the child and we are different and this is where I stop that is dualism I love my lord I depend on my Lord and a surrender to make a lot what about being one with your Lord impossible because I'm not one with my lord that is real dualism now when the so called non dualist worships God he says Here I am I appear as body and mind as this individual being as a human being and here is the same Brahman appearing as God Ishwara near guna Brahman saguna brahman the absolute is near guna Brahman Brahman beyond attributes and God is saguna brahman Brahman with the mask of attributes with a name Rama Krishna or Krishna or Christ with a form the name is illusory Maya the farm is also Maya if you remove the name and form you and I and Ramakrishna are one one Brahman but as long as you wear that particular mask and God will wear this mask and then your relation is worshiper and worshiped knowing all the time you are one reality is it beginning to make sense a non duelist can worship there's no harm in that now to be fair to Jonathan even this kind of worship is it is it contraindicated or is it necessary or is it useful it's not continuity and contraindicated it's not wrong it's not harmful it is useful it is good but if Jonathan asks is it necessary I will have to say it's not necessary there may be that rare soul who can go straight and realize ah hum Rahm has me the world is an appearance can you bypass God you are actually not bypassing God you are going to the reality about God and yourself now this is the philosophical reconciliation put it in one little sentence the reality of non-duality is not contradicted by the appearance of duality a real non duality can very well appear a co-exist and does coexist with the appearance of duality for example right now aren't we having a dual experience and experience of duality all seems to be different from each other right that's our life if adwaita is true Brahman is it there right now is it non dual right now if it is non dual right here right now and it is you and yet we are experiencing a dualistic world then what I said must be true that an appearance of duality can exist with the reality of non duality that is the meaning of the statement brahma satyam jagat mithya what is mithya mithya means false brahma satyam means brandman alone is real jagat mithya means world is an appearance what is the meaning of appearance that which is not real looks like that don't you say that he appears to be a nice person meaning not a nice person it appears to be dual meaning it's not well it's non dual our mistake is not that we experience duality we think this is the final reality that's our mistake Advaita says this is not the reality there is an underlying reality of non duality which appears as a dual universe ok philosophically so far that's the thing let me know when the food is ready yes ok so the reality of non duality does not contradict the appearance of duality all this duality and non-duality is making us hungry there was this L this monk who was a strict non dualist and a pundit who is to come to him it's the story I heard the name LS it's a true story it happened this way the pundit used to come in and fight about that duality alone is true dualism is true Drita is real and adroit is not not correct in one day that the Swami said to disband it I'll tell you in Hindi and then translate this Swami said array pundit g'd way to satya hey to go Basanti a pundit I own a tease but how do allottee is real even that cow on yonder field knows that I am different from the grass so I have to eat the grass you call yourself a pundit tell me something new what is new actually what he means is what is new it appears to be a dualistic world the reality is non-dualistic that is the saving knowledge of Advaita Vedanta on the other hand another story of a pundit under Swami the same Swami who was a strict non duelist another pundit came and argued in favor of dualism and the Swami was arguing in favor of non-dualism and finally the pundit came this a different pundit came and said Swami I agree you are right adwaita is correct and waiter is not actually the discussion was about the absolute without qualities nirakara formless and the wit form nude guna and an Saguna with quality and without qualities with without qualities without attribute the absolute which is operator with qualities dualistic approach greater so finally the pundit came and said Swami you are right without qualities near guna the absolute that alone Advaita is right in hindi near guna and near go thicker optic below you said 'not gunas to the writer so neat guna is correct you are right now this Swami who had been arguing all these days in favor of the absolute in favor of the attribute less absolute he shot back he said and and God with qualities is that your uncle segunda cha cha head it's like saying Bob's your uncle what he meant was the guard with qualities which I had been arguing against so long is exactly the same as as the absolute without qualities in realities it without qualities that that reality without qualities appears to you in your world of experience in your dualistic dealing as God with qualities they are not two separate things all right practical point I'm not done yet practical point come down to classical adroit a look at the one of the best ways of resolving these doubts is look at the person's you would consider enlightened look at Shankar Acharya clearly a non duelist Advaita Vedanta how many hymns he has written to Krishna to Shiva to the Divine Mother beautiful hymns to the Ganges Ganga Ganga stotram beautiful hymns devotional hymns full of dualistic fervor of worship who none other than Adi Shankaracharya himself was he being duplicitous now has no country he sees no contradiction at all there's no contradiction at all even those we considered uncompromising non duelists in this world in the modern world Ramana Maharshi nice argA data mr. data Maharaja he carried on a dualistic form of bhajan all his life hodgins singing devotional songs his guru taught him that and he would he would sing I think in the evenings he would offer incense music so easy is it something like a vestigial organ which it should get rid of like the appendix no he sees no contradiction Ramana Maharshi the great Nandu lists his devotion to Arunachala Shiva was constant throughout his life and he saw no contradiction at all I am one literal naturally Shiva but also have devotion and for a national I think he wrote one him which has the bridal mysticism module ababa towards our national Shiva this is the height of dualistic worship and of course you have a Ramakrishna you'll see what Ramakrishna was doing some people will say Ramakrishna was dualistic he was a devotee Swami Vivekananda said about himself and Ramakrishna he said I seem to be a Gani on the outside inside I am a devotee I'm a pocket ax and the old man he mentioned Ramakrishna is call him the old man the old man was pucked the outside inside he was all guiana completely non-dualistic inside and yet his whole life was what work they no contradiction he sees no contradiction take the example of oh this is a beautiful saying and not a non-dualistic by great non-dualistic master i think it was probably not as resync i think i forget the name of the teacher both hoc prog do mo hyah propped a Manisha buckteeth uncle Pithom to item advaita episode in durham what does it means a beautiful saying before enlightenment duality puts you in delusion it traps you in this little body mind self its delusion the Warworld we we live in after enlightenment a duality imagined for the sake of love bhakti is more beautiful than non duality look at the word used imagine duality and real non duality no contradiction why would you imagine a duality because for the sake of love bhakti you are sugar but you energy in yourself as separate from sugar to taste sugar you then you know your own sweetness that's bhakti based on advaitha that bhakti is an expression of non-duality the worship of God before attained of of non-dual illumination is useful for non-dual illumination not harmful after attainment of non-dual illumination you can continue as a devotee of God it's an expression of your non-dual illumination enough set again to Jonathan I would say not essential try it out for yourself and if you feel the need for dualistic worship and devotion and love don't be ashamed all the great non duelists have have happily embraced this dualistic worship the key is imagine not dwell imagine duality real non duality homes on the chanté chanté hurry he owned that such Sri Ramakrishna Aparna Moscow