Video 20

21. Mandukya Upanishad | Chapter 2 Karika 7-10, 14, 15

Oh bhadram Carini mission ooyama diva petrm Pesce moksha be yatra steerer iran gary Stosh toboggans Astana hee hee via she Madiba Heaton yada Yahoo swass Tina Indra British rava sauce Tina foucha wish schwa Vida Sistina star show Irish Donna me swass Tino Bree Hospital the turtle room chanté chanté chanté so we are studying the Mundaka Upanishad the Manduca caracals of godfather ii chapter ii chapter goethe father wants to prove with the help of reason that the world is an appearance world is an appearance an appearance of what of brahman arturia the existence consciousness place now in order to prove that that the world is an appearance based on reasoning guru pada uses the example of dreams we consider dreams to be false so using that example he's going to build up his case to show on the basis of reasoning that this world is not real in itself it's an appearance of our inner reality to do that first of all to make sure that we are on the same page that the world is really the dreams are really false that we are all agreed the dreams are false he doesn't want somebody to come up suddenly at the middle of the teaching after half the chapter is done and say but dreams are also true today it's going to come someone guy is going to come up and say the dreams could also be true how do you know so he shows through reasoning that dreams are also false that our faults come come come settled oh there's a place here having done that then he moves on to the actual argument for the falsity of the world we saw in the last two classes that this is the crux of the whole chapter I mean if you get this the rest is detail its discussion basically the basic idea which guru father wants to give is it says world is an appearance and if you ask why on what grounds are you saying the world is an appearance he says on these two grounds first he says because it is not apart from the consciousness which experiences it it's a dependent reality you just says because of the well-known reason but we saw because it is an object of consciousness so it is a pretty stunning way of and very I would say a very radical way or the sheer what's the Jewish word for it good spot what's buffer it are saying that that basically you know what he is saying the world is false because you see it because it's an objective experience and we have to know the mechanism of that argument what's going on under the hood how is something false because it's an object of experience usually we we said just the opposite a thing exists because I see it how do you know this person was there in the class because I saw this person because I saw this person the person was in the class but you see it because I see something it's it's false it's an appearance what does that mean and I've I will not go to the whole chain of reasoning today but you know because if you experience something it's an object of consciousness and that object of consciousness cannot be experienced without consciousness without your awareness there is no way of talking about a world whether it's a waking world or a dream world or any object out there somebody said as you know you can have a mind game philosophers play these mind games you can imagine a universe without consciousness would that not exist it's quite possible to imagine a universe without consciousness after all materialist would say that consciousness evolved rather late in the history of the universe there were billions of years without consciousness so can we not imagine that but but remember the whole approach of advaitha is that from the point of the experience of the subject from your own point of view so what would you reply to something like that you would say yes even that mind game note that's something in your consciousness even such a to conceive of that mind game you need consciousness yeah so it cannot be experienced other than consciousness no object can be experienced other than consciousness if the argument is built into the very language when you say experience you are already including consciousness there without consciousness experience is not possible after all what is experience how would you define experience experience is consciousness plus it's object when consciousness finds an object whether through the eyes or ears use find it through it's through your eyes you see I'm seeing something I'm having the conscious experience of seeing through the years I'm having the conscious experience of hearing if you remember something in the memory I'm having the conscious experience of recollection but it's consciousness plus an object could be an object out there could be an object in the body could be an object in the mind none of these objects can be experienced without consciousness you cannot even speak about these objects without reference to consciousness that's why I'm always I reminded you last time I heard this very interesting teaching by a Swami in the Himalayas he says Jarrell Shekar Jessica be showroom at Cairo never start with the object no never start with matter why not Jeremie lega you will get matter only a new Huff's issue Recaro start with experience start with your experience then you will get to what we Dante's pointing out and this is correct because after all if you start with just the object you are not giving and full and honest account of it if I say I am seeing this piece if I say this is a piece of cloth you - yeah that's right I'll give you another statement I am seeing a piece of cloth which is more correct and more complete the second one it's a piece of cloth in my experience normally we leave out that I am seeing I am thinking I am remembering because that I is a constant in all experiences and you can leave it out for practical purposes that's why science leaves the subject out science tries to be objective leaving the subjective element out because that's how science works and it's it's not necessary to bring this subject in and if you do it leads to all sorts of complications but the catch is when you are studying the subject when you're studying yourself how can you leave the subject out when you're studying yourselves like leading what you want to study you leave that out and then you is trying to study it is impossible so when you're trying to realize what you are everything every experience you have acknowledged that the experience is possible because of consciousness and that is what God upon uses as an argument if you are experiencing it as an object it's an appearance in consciousness in between there is an argument you have to ask the question all right I am experiencing this object in my consciousness there have to ask the question what is the relationship of that object to my consciousness and very soon you will see it cannot be an independent object apart from my consciousness why not because for two things to be independent they must be experienceable separately your own awareness you are constantly experiencing its revealing itself within you the objects of this universe you can only experience them in your awareness you cannot experience them apart from awareness it's it's logically impossible so if two things cannot be experienced separately you have no ground for claiming that they are actually independent entities they always go together that's why God our Father will come that's one strategy by gaurav are the claims that the objects are actually dependent on the knower of the objects the objects of knowledge are dependent of the on the knower of the objects conch the the objects of consciousness are dependent on consciousness so that's one argument it bears a lot of thinking and lot of right now what we'll do today a lot of objections will come from different philosophers they will raise objections come come come there are their space here come here okay where was I the object in consciousness of course that's always where I am at right yeah there it will come now the objections of different philosophers will come down now I remember I'm just joking so the claim is really remarkable a thing is an appearance it's false it's not real because you see it like like what like your dreams in your dreams you saw these people these things these events you had these experiences and you wake up and you say all of it was false it was just appearance I was actually asleep and my mind conjured up those things yesterday those were there in the Rubin Museum at the very end Deepak Chopra recited a little poem it's actually this thing he said if you can see it if you can hear it if you can smell it if you can touch it if you can taste it if you can remember it if you can think about it if you can say it it's not real and that sounds cruel but what's the logic behind it the logic behind it is these two reasons one reasons this if it is if it is an object object means you can see hear smell touch taste some or one of these or many of these you can remember it you think about its express it in language okay so that's one reason and a stunning reason in itself but thinking about the second reason which came up was another stunning reason things are false because they are impermanent do you remember that which is does not exist in the beginning and that which does not exist at the end in between it also does not exist it only appears to exist now this is a very powerful reason why but things are impermanent everybody knows this that we are subject to birth and death things are subject to creation and destruction everybody knows this we accept it many people in this class have said Swami we understand the impermanence of things on idiom that we understand and that's a fact but to accept that things may be impermanent but they could be real I know that the cookie did not exist earlier and the cookie won't exist a minute later but in between if it exists for one minute on my tongue that's enough the impermanent doesn't is not really a problem things are important in fact an eternal cookie would be a problem so yes sir that things are impermanent unknown and this is easy to accept but just because something is impermanent why should it be false to accept the falsity of things which advaitha insists upon that is difficult but you accept the impermanence of things you say yes and God or father says AHA gotcha says if you accept the impermanence of things you accept the default city of things how so and you remember the argument thinks if something has if something has borrowed something else the example of heat so a potato boiling and it's hot but it's not hot intrinsically after some time it cools down the it borrowed its heat from the boiling water even the water borrowed its heat from the hot pan underneath even the hot pan underneath borrowed its heat from the fire but the fire didn't borrow its heat from anywhere the fire as long as the fire lasts it is hot the other things which borrowed the heat they got it and lost it now one sign of something not being intrinsic is that it comes and goes so borrowed heat or borrowed wealth it comes and goes if it is intrinsic it will last it will stay with the entity now just says apply this reasoning to existence by the way I'm moving fast here if there are philosophers here you might even point out I don't need to this is a very technical point which will appeal only to philosophers Kant pointed out that existence is not a predicate it's not a property and Advaita agrees with him more than a thousand fourteen hundred years before can't shankar also pointed the same thing out but anyway just having said that I will just leave it there now if existence is borrowed if an entity borrows existence what will happen it will gain in existence in lose existence it will sometimes it will come into being and then it will die it will go out of being it will be produced it will be destroyed will be born it will die that's a sign of borrowed existence but if a thing has intrinsic existence like fire has intrinsic heat then what will happen to that thing what will happen to something which is intrinsic existence existence of its own not borrowed from elsewhere it will be permanent it will be eternal so now that means being born and dying being created and being destroyed is a sign of borrowed existence you're with me now look at everything in this universe things which are non eternal which are born and which die which are created and destroyed which come into being and just disappear which means in this terminology they have all got borrowed existence you'll say yeah so what this is the point the very definition of falsity in Advaita Vedanta is borrowed existence dependent existence it does not exist without its underlying reality so it has borrowed its existence from its underlying reality the part borrows its existence from the clay or even more so the snake apparent snake borrows its existence from the real rope which is misperceived as the snake so similarly everything in the universe which you have already accepted remember you have already accepted that they are non permanent which means they have got borrowed existence which means they have dependent existence if they're dependent existence that's the very definition of falsity slim said so these are the two reasons which we got one reason is because they all are manifestations of their objects in sanskrit drishya two are because because they are objects because they are objects of experience then must be false the second reason is an idiot because they are impermanent then they must be false because of these two powerful arguments gorup are the insists that everything that we experience in the world is an appearance but appearance of what off Brahman or in the in the Manduca terminology turian the fourth the real self all right this is what we have where we are at now now a number of you have questioned here a number of objections will come up yes absolutely absolutely absolutely but then why - one is an approach you will notice the subtle difference one is an approach from consciousness chit one is an approach from existence at right have you noticed that yeah yeah basically it's the same argument now objections what happens next verse number seven right now what is going to happen is the opponents of this that you're trying to equate the waking and the dream you're trying to equate the waking in the dream the opponents of this philosophy will come forth with objects objections to show that look we accept that the dreams are false but the waking and the dream are not equivalent waking is real and we are not going to give up that so easily it's it seems so real to us now we are going to argue we are going to show you waking is real because of these reasons they're going to show certain reasons which will distinguish waking and dreaming once you distinguish waking and dreaming they'll show dreaming we admit is false but waking is real because of this distinguishing factor what distinguishing factor for factors will be advanced now for arguments against this position that waking and dreaming are equally false from the point of view of the ultimate reality now for arguments will be advanced what are the four arguments one will be an argument from utility one will be an argument from externality one will be an argument from stability and one will be an argument from clear perception you need not write that down I will go it go into it one by one I just summarized the whole class now and we'll see God upon us answers to these questions are humans you will see there they come up in our minds these are the arguments the objections which come up in our minds if you think about it we have a strong feeling that dreams are not real waking Israel we have strong feeling and if you are challenged we tend to fight to defend this feeling and how do we fight these are the reasons which come up our mind says look tell that guy this reason this is why the waking lives real and dreams are false you will see these very reasons will come up the first reason and God up others answers to them I remember once I asked I had a friend who in the monastery many many years ago a brilliant young novice and he told me something very in testing ones he said you might sometimes think what practical good is it to discuss the views of philosophers long dead obscure philosophers and especially here we are in the West in in America in New York in Manhattan obscure Indian philosophers thousands of years ago their theories and arguments what is it might be nice to discuss those things abstractions but really what good is it to us today and the other thing he told me was actually it's not so much whether what the logician said what the sunken said what the Buddhist said all of them are in our own minds these are the positions that our intellect takes at different times these are the questions which come to us you will see verse number seven soprano Janet Ishaan Supriya Janet addition Swapna be pretty but dirty Sapna be pretty but dirty the SMAW dodging toe between Cosmo dodging tava tweener makeva colitis Britta Ava color taste Morita the first one is a utility argument what does the argument what does it go like the argument goes like this objects in the dream and objects in waking cannot be equated for example I get a lot of money I win the lottery in a dream and I get a lot of money but it's no good to me I can't go and pay my mortgage or my rent with that money it's not there at all when I when I wake up it's gone so whatever happens in the dream has no utility at all so they are not real whereas if I get my get my paycheck in my waking state I can use that money it is useful hence utility is an argument for the reality of the waking state and the unreality of the dream remember this person takes a common-sense approach this person says is it's a very pragmatic approach this and agrees with God a father agrees with God upon so that dreams are false but does not agree with God a father that waking is false waking is real why exam reason because of utility things in the waking State have their use so whatever happens in the dream has has no practical consequence for my waking state but the things which happen in the waking state they have practical utility but the answer you know it's you me I think immediately you know you'll know what dance a god of others answer will be dream objects have utility in in dream state yes yeah somebody said if you go to sleep and in your kitchen there's a lot of food and your dreams you feel very hungry all the food in the in the waking kitchen the kitchen of your waking life will have no help will be of no help to you in your dreams you are safe and sound in your asleep in your bed and you feel that maybe you're alone somewhere and a typical example is a tiger is chasing you that's unlikely here in Manhattan but maybe you're being mugged or something like that but you're safe and sound in your in your room so the security which you have of the the Waker who is now sleeping that security is of no use in the dream so all the things which you think have utility you have locked the doors tightly but lo and behold when you dream an intruder has come in and burglars there and you're terrified what's happening so all the things which are butyl eating the waking state have no utility at all in the dream state just like the things which you experience in the dream state have no utility back in the waking State so utility God about this point is utility cannot be an argument for reality utility cannot be an argument for reality just let me mention here there is a school of philosophy Buddhist school which defines reality as Arthur crea car is too impractical efficacy it says the the approach is like this a thing is real if it is if you can use it it is effective in your life if it does what is meant to do so for example Mirage water is false because if you go to it and you try to drink it listen there is no water it will not quench your thirst there is no use doing that I mean you it cannot fulfill your what it is supposed to do its functions it does not fulfill it looks like water but it isn't water why is it not water because it doesn't fulfill the function of water so this is called in sanskrit art kriya carrot term practical efficacy of the object in modern language you might call it the a pragmatic approach pragmatism in fact in there is a very classic american philosophy so somebody says it you can define it as the cash value philosophy what does it how does it work does it give you its benefits now the answer to this argument from the Buddhists the practical efficacy is the determinant of reality the answer is again very simple you can give the answer from a dream state you're feeling very thirsty and you find water and you drink it and your thirst is quenched but when you wake up neither your thirst nor the water was real not your drinking it was real you are asleep in bed right so even if it worked in the dream it worked in the dream it quenched your thirst in the dream but at the end of it when you wake up you realize the whole thing is falsified so practical efficacy is also not an argument for reality so that's what God a father points out he sets aside this objection he says no this is not a valid objection for the reality of waking things why not because the utility of making things is lost in dreams and you say the dream thinks dream is false because those objects have no utility in the waking well the dream objects and utility in the dream state where is yes so the verse was sub provisional thought a sham Swapna be pretty but dirty he says the suppression of the utility station of the earth those of which ones are the objects of the waking world Swapna in dream we pretty bug deity it is set aside it is contradicted in dream they are not available to you in dream therefore all the objects in the waking state are also false he says the smart they are false they are false why our defaults because of the reason stated earlier because they have a beginning and an end and their dependent their objects of consciousness because of those reasons they are equally false remember the objects in the dream also have a beginning and an end and they are also objects of consciousness and the objects in the waking have a beginning and an end and there are also objects of consciousness so the reasons apply equally to the falsity in dream and in waking so that's the first yes right we're coming to it do you remember for for objections you see this is exactly what I'm talking about if you think about it your mind will come up with these objections one is utility second one was externality third one by said stability they see what is seen calling continuity it goes from one point of time to another you wake up into the same waking world life after I mean waking after waking but in dreams every dream is different there's a different continuum altogether so isn't that an argument waking is real and dream is false let's call the continuity argument which is as asking it'sit's a third one actually it's coming up so even this question was around maybe you were there you ask God a part of this condition 1400 years ago yes so this is what that novice meant that all of these questions are in our minds we are asking these questions but before we go on to those arguments there is this guy who comes along and says wait a minute I've been listening to you all this time but something is bothering me dreams can also be real you know dreams can also be real it's again a different alternate reality so is rather late in the day is asking this question so that that question it's interjected in the middle of the four arguments so it will just quickly dispense with this guy ate worse he has come up with a rather unique argument for the reality of dreams what is the unique argument Apoorva mastani dermo he Apoorva mastani dermo he yatta swagger navasana motto swagger navasana don IM pretty shot ii got wha Donna I am free shotty got wha your TV her so sick AHA your TV her so she schita alright what what is the argument here this guy says look you are saying that dreams are just the imaginings of the mind the mind sort of freewheeling you know churning out its own imaginings body has shut down in sleep and the mind is doing its own thing generating a virtual reality based on the experiences of the waking State so dreams are constituted of samskaras impressions gathered in the waking state but hold on in dream sometimes we see unique things which we have never seen in the waking State so maybe wonderful creatures or something something extraordinary happens which just cannot happen in the waking State so doesn't that prove that means it could not have come from the impressions of the waking State because these are unique you might call it the uniqueness argument so it's a unique argument so doesn't it prove that the dreams are original experiences we must have gone to some alternate reality or some virtual reality or something and the answer he gives is two points first of all the original argument holds whether they're unique or not are they not objects of experience they're objects of experience whether unique or not you see them hence they're false that our argument holds the other one also holds they have a beginning and an end so that argument also holds but also addressing your uniqueness argument directly it's not necessary that you have to see everything that you need dream of to see it in the waking what you see is unique in a dream maybe a unicorn but you might have seen a horse and a horned animal and you put the horn on the horse or something and then you see a unicorn in a dream maybe so that elements which you see which constitute the unique experience you have those elements are borrowed from the waking state and he gives the example that oh the guy who was giving this argument that person said look we talk about heaven and in different heavens people go and have extraordinary experiences they see Indra and so those experiences are unique indra the god of the god the king of the gods and so on or the white elephant of indra or things like that extraordinary experience is in heaven like it's like Disney World so if you saw those things in Disney World it couldn't have been a dream though you have not because you have not seen them anywhere else outside except Times Square but but if you see in Mickey Mouse and all the other people whom you do not see in the waking life outside then Disney World couldn't have been a dream you must have actually gone there and seen those things that was the argument of this person so just like you go to heaven and see so heaven must be a distinct place it can't be imagination because you never saw such things earlier similarly dreams also you see unique things so dreams must be real like hair going to heaven and yeah possible possible it's basically what we have experienced and it comes out and basically it's a mix you need not have experienced exactly the same thing in your waking life it could be a mix of things often we see in dreams timelines are confused people you have ages are confused and the strange things happen so it's a mixture of things we have gathered in the waking state but he says all of them are characteristics of the seers tani dharma the tani means the person in that particular state that person experiences those those objects so you in the dream you experienced those objects my point is there are all objects of experience hence they're false so he dispenses with that look at the verse a poor one-star need her mahi Apoorva means unique objects are experienced guitars organ amar Sonam as people going to heaven see unique objects so it couldn't it be that dreams are real like go like going to heaven remember this in those days going to heaven was taken for granted that it's a real thing today we are skeptics I think we are impoverished that way in imagination though people in ancient times for them this world was real in other worlds but also real I mean they took it as a matter of course things are like that are there we are too skeptical these days this alone is real and the rest is they were superstitious that's the example just as we consider heaven to be real because we see unique things there can't we consider dreams to be real also because we see unique things there he points out that even in the dreams what you see is you see it it's an object of experience these are characteristics tani the her mother the person tani means the state the person in that state the person in that state sees them hence they are objects of experience and he says don I am break shot a cat wat the person goes to sleep and then sees those things just like yatta Ava Eva Tsui Chik she taaha just like a well-informed person who has to travel to a long distance yet he's told about where to go how to go and he actually does that and as those experiences as he goes along this is the example like so nowadays you would use a GPS example you program it in GPS and it takes you there and you actually start seeing two things which you go you go there and then see those things I don't see whether I mean privately I'm telling you from my thing as I was sort of pondering over this example I don't see how this example is particularly helpful anyway that you somebody goes to a distance place and has been given information about it and follows those information and goes there and sees those places just like that you go to dreams and see it and there doesn't make those things real the example is not very not very lucid maybe the point is missed here example sees spaceship external is to see see Iike to see premonition you feel that something's going to happen and then it happens yeah yeah but what is your point here no but what is your point here we are talking about dream is false so you're going to say that I know what you've been trying to save your something to say we sometimes have premonitions and they turn out to be true that's what you're trying to say so how can you say they're false but all right I will subcontract this out to you right not only that yes you felt that this person is going to come today whom you have not seen for twenty years have a premonition of that and then somebody rings the bell and that person has come you say my premonition has come true it's true right but did that person come and then you said it's true just when you had the premonition you said it's true are you getting me see this this argument we have we have seen it earlier you know where in the case of dreams which turn out to be true when you first set the example that dreams are false invariably there will be somebody in the audience who will say that but I have a dreams come out to be true the problem is the lack of philosophical thinking philosophical thinking or logical thinking is what do you mean dreams have turned out to be true what do you mean when you say dreams are true what you mean when you say dreams are true is it not this that you dreamt something and then in your waking life that thing happened and then you said the dream is true okay I dreamt somebody gave me this book and next day in the morning this thing appeared in a gift packet or something oh the dream turned out to be true now my question is if the dream is true in itself then do you have two copies of the book or one copy one you got in the dream and one you got in waking life what do you say it's what do you say is true if somebody gives you the book you say it's real somebody gave it to me so in the dream if it is real somebody gave it to you it should wake up with the book in your hand you you go you actually got the book but you still have to wait for it to happen in real life in in waking life then only you will say that the dream is true so when you say dreams are true it's just an indication which has to be fulfilled in waking life then only you can say it is true in waking life that is not so making like somebody gives you something you immediately say it is true in dream somebody gave you something you don't say it's immediately true it's only it has to happen again in the waking life then only it's true otherwise you'll end up with two copies of the book no backsies so in the pre case of premonition also it's the same thing but forgetting all of that goroh father says do you experience it yes if you experience it then it's an object of your awareness if it's an object of your awareness it's a dependent reality the awareness alone is real is it does it have a beginning and end yes it has a beginning and end then it has a borrowed existence so in both cases it's an appearance mithya false in that sense a very philosophical point of the way of looking at it yes that things are real if they have consequences yes his dream was real consequences in the waking State writing that follow as a consequence follow that carefully when you say that the dream is false the precise formulation of that statement is the object scene the dream world are false the events are false they never happened those objects were not really there so when Janaka wakes up the consequences which were witnessed in the dream all of them disappear he has not lost the battle he's not lying on the back on ground and you know saying alas well do you remember the story he is not hungry he's not wounded so all of those consequences preached as part of the dream disappeared those are the content of the dream so that is false because they disappeared right okay now there's a consequence okay now the consequence is the consequence of the experience not really of the contents so Advaita never denies the experience advaitha will will deny that you're actually in a battle Intel Janaka you are never in a battle it will deny that you actually lost the battle ever captured and you humiliated none of that ever happened but it will never deny that you saw it as a dream that it how can you deny Advaita never goes against experience but it says investigate the reality of the experience now if you say what about the consequences when you wakes up those things are their true Advaita never says that you are not palpitating adversity never says you are not sweating you're not scared when a false experience can have an X px you now those effects are felt in the waking State those are also false but from the advaithic perspective right the dream experience was not false as long as it was not recognized as a dream it was within from the perspective of Janaka in the dream follow this very carefully from the perspective of Janaka dream is a dream but from the perspective of the Janaka who was in the dream as the person who fought the battle for that person it's pretty real but the point is that person's self is not real that person is a figment of the dreamers imagination right from the dreamers perspective the person in the dream is false and all the persons in the dream are appearances and all the events are fictitious but the person who is dreaming he's not false now he wakes up into the reality from that perspective the dream is falsified now the person in the real from the from in the waking from the waking perspective all of this is as real as the dream was for the person in the dream all this is false from the point of what from the point of Turia not from the point of the person in in the waking state remember what is the Turia Turia is not the Waker it's not the dreamer it's not the deep sleeper it's the one consciousness underlying waking dreaming and deep sleep appearing as waked dreamer and deep sleeper alright now let us go on so there was a little interlude when this person came up with a sudden question wait a minute dreams can also be real you know and see no they are not real the uniqueness argument that falls down now let's go back to the other people they have questions one was the utility argument the second comes another argument the argument from externality it's a subtle but powerful argument and I've actually seen it being applied in the 1920s centuries by modern philosophers here realists who try to prove realism against idealism by these very arguments let's see ninth verse Swapna retama Piet one swapna pratap atlanta jetta circle beaten to assert jatis Arkell peetam to assert beheshti tog rhythm said Beheshti to create Amjad drizzt invited to meet you just invited to meter yo all right first what is the argument the argument goes like this look at this object here is this object and then you when you see it or when I see it the object is here existing outside me and I also have a mental image of it in my mind I I experienced this object in my mind the light goes through from the object to my eyes and an image is form that is transferred to the brain and in the brain somehow it is presented to the mind and I experienced this internally also I'm having the experience of a book internal eye I recognize it as a book all this is happening internally and externally also this thing exists when such a situation obtains we say the thing is real if I right now if I imagine a book now does that make the book real no if you imagine otherwise you could have imagined a thousand dollars it should have become real if there is a thousand dollars outside and you experience okay that's a thousand dollars you are experiencing inside in your mind and out there also there is an external reality and of course an internal reality because you have to experience it to talk about it when there when it exists externally and is also experienced internally you call it real when it exists only internally you just imagined it suppose then you call it imaginary mental not real that's what you call so a thing must have an external reality to make it real of course should have a corresponding mental image of that of course to experience it if it has only Intel existence it's not real so for example Harry Potter Harry Potter fictitious why because it exists in your mind exists in JK Rowling some JK Rowling read JK Rowling's mind and the minds of all her little fans you know they they imagine it very powerfully but it exists only in our minds not outside there though there are theme parks now I think where did I see it in a Hollywood or something is a big poster that JK Rowling's Hogwarts and you can go there and you have to pay real money to see it so it exists only in your mind these characters and the places exist only in the mind of the author and the people who are enjoying it and they know it you know that's it's not really out there anywhere so it's fictitious but if you say Cambridge University or Oxford University or JK Rowling's heart herself they exist in our minds but they also exist out there hence we say they are real external existence plus your internal exist in your mental existence is reality only existing in your mind is unreal so if you say so what remember this is the person who's asking a question he will say now apply it to dream and waking we say dream is unreal because when we wake up we say it was all in my mind it is not really out there hence it's a dream it's false but this world is out there in my mind of course but also out there hence it's it's real how can you distinguish bit so how can you say dreams and making are the same or both our faults external existence of entities is a sign of reality yes gopalam awkward so any kind of mystical experiences his mystical experiences are real because they have because they are related to God who is a reality's not just in the mind of GABA luma she is accessing a mystical realm of some reality some spiritual reality that's why mystics experiences are not hallucinations we would say a skeptic might say that they're perfect they say this thing works perfectly well those experiences are just internal to that person their imaginings yeah absolutely absolutely suppose of course you take a dualistic philosophy we are now stepping out of this thing but because she has asked I'm giving you the answer a dualistic philosophy Vaishnava philosophy so if you said ask a vaishnava here is Gopal Emma she sees Krishna is this only mental or is it externally real all something exists apart from our mind the Vaishnava will say of course if the Krishna exists and she is a saint and she has these mystical experiences we can't see it because our minds are not pure and not tuned the minds have to be purified and tuned to that particular thought current then you have these mystical experiences so a devotee is actually experiencing a mystical realm which exists outside the devotees mind it's real so that's what a duellist would say but anyway here the person is asking a question to God our Father you are distinguished you are saying waking and dreaming our equivalent both are false waking world is as false dreaming world a dream world but clearly there's a distinction when you wake up don't you have everybody even if you are non dualist don't you have the experience oh that was all in my mind and hence what do you say to yourself you Nandu a list mister Nandu list what do you say to yourself oh that was a dream because it's in your mind and you never say these things are dreams because they are outside you yeah they're in your my notes so but they're outside you when you wake up and have breakfast and you eat your cereal the cereal is out there and of course you're tasting it and experiencing it inside if you are only experiencing it inside and it's not out there you wouldn't say you're really having breakfast you're imagining breakfast I saw a picture of a very expensive restaurant I think it was in Europe somewhere so you are supposed to grow there and it's beautifully set out and ambience is there and there the waiters will come and set out the table and give you the menu and you order and the pictures are all there of all the food items but nothing will actually be served to you so you will have to the the glasses are there you have to sip and imagine it you know like virtually see the pictures and imagine it and then the food all the appropriate dishes and cutlery will come and go and you have to meditatively actually use your fork and knife and spoon and it's really expensive that part is not imagination you can't like imaginatively give money to the earth to the waiter and say I've paid the bill no the bill is very real and money is also very real but they're creating an experience but the thing is the food is outside that's why you say it's a real breakfast it's not so even a non-buddhists has to admit that is it not now what does God a father say to it what would you say yeah are you going back to the original arguments yes okay yes right right right but but these people are true but these people have not bought into those arguments they are not bought into it they are saying yeah yeah yeah right right that's true from God about his point of view but these people are giving alternatives and the way we normally think because normally commonsensical e we make a clear distinction between dreams and waking as long as we keep on making this distinction karappa this approach will not work he has to erase was the difference between we have between waking and dreaming in order to use it use dreams as an argument for proving the falsity of the waking now he asks us like it's like he's asking us tell me what are your objections to equating waking and dreaming you can even forget those arguments because the answers he will give here are not using those arguments the four arguments which are coming utility remember how how did he deal with the utility he didn't say that even if it has utility utility is still an object of your consciousness so it's false he didn't say that he didn't say that even utility has a beginning and end therefore it's false no he didn't say that what did he say thinks in the waking have utility the dream objects dream money has no utility but ah you look at the waking paradigm and the dream paradigm dream objects have utility in the dream world and yes you are right they had no utility in the waking world but equally waking objects have no eternity in the dream world also and he used that argument did you see that so he will use the person's own logic to show that the question is not valid but not using his original - or - you know like Brahmastra what no actually you know what happens is why we normally do not think of the dream world as an alternate reality the original arguments against the dream world being real if you bring them up do you remember the original arguments you see that you have gone to a place and you suddenly wake up you do not wake up in the place you will wake up in your bedroom in your bed right if you did wake up in the place then you would be confused you would think that oh maybe I did come here I'm just jet-lagged up I was thinking of dreaming but actually I'd traveled here but you don't wake up at that place you come you are back where we really went to sleep and then rather arguments time is not congruent space is not congruent so because of all these reasons when we wake up we say that was the dream and that thing we do not have for the waking world that's why we normally make a clear distinction between the dream and the waking world we do not feel about the waking world that it's contradicted it's it's not real but for the dream world we feel been upon waking up it's that it's contradicted if we did not feel contradicted we might feel that we had gone to some other realm some kind of virtual reality but we see there all this contradicting exact facts I saw myself in a place different place and now I see I mean on my bed that means I did not go there I must have dreamt it things like that yeah now but here what's going on is for that's why you know when the teachers actually teach this they rearrange the verses they will give you the two reasons why waking world is false then they'll big a bring up before arguments from people who say wait a minute I'm going to rain on your parade before you go ahead and start proving the waking world is false I'm not accepting your thesis that the I accept dreams are false but the waking is not false for these four reasons and then they will teach those verses first then come back to that unique argument in the seventh verse like that even now I'll have to rearrange the verses little bit as I go ahead now the argument here is externality things exist outside my mind therefore they are real this is the argument of any realist seen right now idealism you know you know a philosophy of idealism Bishop Berkeley subjective idealism he he was Bishop Berkeley was Irish or Scottish Berkeley the philosopher I forget but he said things exist in your mind how can you prove that they exist outside because you can never experience anything without your mind the same thing which Godfather says so here go to passages without consciousness he said without your mind so all things your dreams are in your mind and your waking is also in your mind that they actually exist outside you say I see them and we all see them so they must exist outside us well then I'll say you are all in my mind how do I know you exist outside so Bishop Berkeley we had this position subjective idealism and will is fond of quoting this Samuel Johnson's biographer Boswell he quotes this thing he says to Samuel Johnson that I know this philosophy must be false what the Berkeley says but it's very difficult to refute it and Samuel Johnson there was a large rock he kicked it robust - this is what Boswell writes Samuel Johnson kicked it robustly and he said I refuted thus here is a big rock and kicking it and it hurts my foot so it's real it's not I in my mind but then that doesn't refute it he could the whole thing could be dreamt it could be in the mind also I saw a different kind of reply - Sam Johnson I mentioned it here also is reading in a book why does the world exist by Jim Holt and he says Samuel Johnson's answer was this is a solid world how can it be in my mind a rock a hollow full rock how can it be a thought it's a solid thing but modern physics he says it's showing us it's not at all solid one person San Diego told me scientist he told me that actually even these things we have a sort of school schoolboy idea of physics that I like little pebbles constituting reality but that's not true in atoms it's mostly space he gave the example that in the big stadium in the center if you put a basketball that's the nucleus and on the highest seed the furthest seed if you put one tennis ball that's an electron and that's the distance between them at a subatomic scale so mostly it is space and even the tiny subatomic particles according to modern physics they are more like fields rather than granule granular little pebbles and it's not like that or like little billiard balls not like that so Jim Holt quartz pump from a modern poet who is replying to Samuel Johnson's refutation I refuted thus he kicks the rock and the poet writes today from the point of view of physics not from God about this point of view from the point of view of modern physics the refuted the poem runs like this kick the rock Sam Johnson break your bones but cloudy cloudy are the stuff of stones the stuff of stones the what is made of don't it seems so solid and hard but actually physics science tells us and it is mostly space and electrons buzzing around and electrical fields and tiny little nucleus so he says cloudy cloudy are the stuff of stones stuff of tones is not as solid as we think them to be so there's a beautiful reply to Samuel Johnson but no this is the very argument which this person is giving this is the very argument used by modern philosophers to refute idealism what's the argument it exists in the external world not only in your mind it's therefore it is real there was a great philosopher GE Moore in Cambridge University he was a senior of Bertrand Russell and there's a paper on refutation of idealism where he says I will prove that idealism is wrong the world is out there and we are experiencing it in our minds our minds are representing an external world out there how will I prove it if you read I read the paper the paper two pages it's a very influential paper proof of the reality of an external world very influential paper at the beginning of 20th century I wrote it but if you actually read the paper you'll be stunned you know what is the proof he offers he says if I raise my hand and show you and say this is one hand and then I raise my other hand and show you this is another hand here are two hands this is the proof that there are hands outside your imagination let's see what happened here he says in normal day-to-day discourse suppose someone shows you this is a book do you question it he's telling you it's a book you can see that it's a book do you question whether the book is outside there or in my mind you know there's a book there you never question it in day-to-day life now in the philosophy class why are you questioning it that there is really my hand here it's not only in your mind so the two hands example which he gives if you read moods refutation of idealism are you convinced by this argument no why not because that that defense doesn't work in common day-to-day life it's that's precisely because it is not philosophy you don't question that the point of philosophy is to ask these questions I don't think any idealist would be they would be outraged by this kind of an argument but it's it apparently become very very powerful and that people is the sort of at the basis of the thought words fashion turning away from idealism to realism in the 20th century anyway so this is the argument advanced to gora pas de ik making world exists out there and in your mind dream world exists only in your mind proof you yourself said when you woke up it's all in my mind I dreamt it so therefore waking word is real dream world is not real bill you want to say something but gora Prada or any other philosopher well they will if you take God about this position even physiology appears to you in your in your consciousness [Music] grown-ups yes I read a paper which shows that ants also dream we have rapid eye movement and they have rapid antennae movement REM sleep is it's a paper and I've seen it it's a scientific paper but which goes to prove something amazing drat if something like an ant or a rat or even an ant could dream up in some sort what would a rat dream about even an ant interact my dream about sugar or something else what would an ant dream about sugar or something and now dreams seemed to be a pretty high order function of a developed nervous system and brain normally you wouldn't expect an ant to dream and it's supposed to have a real rudimentary kind of a nervous system where dreams seem pretty sophisticated anyway goroh pod is not interested in this goroh pod is not interested goroh pod is interested in consciousness and its objects right goroh pod is interested in the experience of dreaming to gora pod that this would be beside the point all right now what is god about this answer to this charge can you one answer it yes right right so grown-up fathers answered you can easily guess because he was going to always compare the dream and the waking he will say exactly the same thing happens in the dream in the dream when you do not know it's a dream you are in the dream you are dreaming you see a person you meet your friend and say hello Tim and you shake hands with Tim now Tim is out there for you and you are imagining you are having a mental image of Tim Tim also the team is external to you in the dream but when you wake up what happens even though Tim was external and you had a mental image of Tim in the dream when you wake up you realize that external Tim and the mental image of team which you had in the dream the whole thing is a dream it spots you really did not meet Tim and shake hands proof go and asked him did I meet you last night and shake hands with you no I haven't seen you in 20 years so the answer is very simple if you if you see that what happens in the dream world you will see exactly that in the dream world when you do not know it's a dream in the dream world you can make that kind of a distinction here is an apple outside and an imagining an apple because it's outside it's a real Apple and I'm imagining a banana there is no banana outside so that banana is false because it's only internal and not external but when you wake up apples and bananas internal and external all our dreams all our internal their dreams so that argument falls down you you were by now you must have gotten onto the trick that got a father's pulling he just simply pushes you and to compare the dream and baking go to the dream and see the same thing is happening in the dream dream experience from the perspective of the dreamer from the perspective of the person in the dream then we come to the next argument ten oh this is the answer to the to the it is God about this answer ten is Dakota Potter's answer to this this question of external and internal jagrata repeat wanta Jagran Pratap eat want aha Jetta Circle peetam to assert cheater circle Payton to Assad bah his J Tokra hitam said Burrage a degree he Tom Schaad öktem bata Tomita yo optim white m8 yo ho so even in the waking state whatever is imagined by the inner consciousness is false and whatever is perceived by outer consciousness is true it is reasonable that both of these should be unreal exactly the same thing happens in the waking in the dream state in both you have the experience of external thing and internal thing just an experiencing something as external does not make it real that's the point here now we'll have to skip over eleven and twelve and thirteen and come to fourteen and fifteen and then we'll come back to eleven twelve thirteen why because fourteen and fifteen have the two other arguments for distinguishing waking and dreaming remember there are four arguments which are bought for fourth against guru father guru pod is trying to erase the line between waking and dreaming the common sense argument the realists argument against them for arguments argument from utility argument from externality and now constancy the one which this gentleman asked what's the argument from constancy waking things disappear as eating pizza and then I have to wake up suddenly the alarm woke up I luckily I put it in the fridge the dream fridge so tomorrow when I go to back to the dream world I'll take it out from the fridge and either warm it up in the dream microwave oven and then eat the dream pizza no it's never going to happen because those things do not exist when you are not dreaming them but the pizza which your pizza put in your fridge in the waking world it's likely to be there when you wake up if not somebody else has eaten it bad luck but it's likely to be there when you wake up you wake up into the same bedroom the same people the same car and apartment and job and problems all of them are saying the same body so things in the waking world persists over time they are connected and they are stable over time they're consistent over time hence they are real but things in the dream world are not consistent not only from one night to one one night one dreamed but one dream to another dream in the same night we have many dreams actually most of which we do not remember some people do not remember any dreams do so they come and say you know we don't have any dreams you have dreams you forget all of it and most of us who do remember dreams we remember only some of the dreams we forget most of our dreams so from dream to dream it's not consistent hence dreams are dreams and faults but all growed-up other things in the waking state people in the waking state life in the waking state is stable thank God and hence it is real so we too cannot be the same what would God our Father say but I think you know the trick by now alright let's read the verse 14 cheat Allah he and aha sorry titik allah he enters to cheat allah he enters to do Calabar he do a collage shiver he call peta eva tease ruby call peta a patisserie vitiation anya he took aha vishay shown on hey toca the answer the doubt is this there are some things which exist only in the dream as long as you imagine them the things in the dream but in the waking world they are connected from one point to another from last night's before you went to sleep and when you wake up same people same object same body same apartment so they exist over time what do you say to that goroh father will give us reason but this exact same question was asked to the holy mother by I think Swami a Rupa and the one of Marshalls disciples I remember reading that exactly the same questions she was sitting in jerem but in the village and she sort of remarked sort of pensively this world my child is a dream or is like a dream to shop no and he protested the Swami protested he said but know the things in the world are real because they they continue from the continual takeo yet the stable that's why they are real and the dream world is not real because things have gone moment you wake up and they don't come back next time you dream and her answer was gora pada will give a philosophical answer her answer was no philosophy she she burst out laughing and she said I'll tell you in Bengali and then translate into English Tahu leave abhava shop Norway tannoy let that be so my child it is nothing more than a dream let that be so let it persist even then it's nothing more than a dream let us see Gor Apophis got a pada supports Martha but with some argumentation and you know what argumentation he'll give he says it's exactly the same thing which happens in a tree suppose in a dream you have the experience of waking up from a dream so dream one you wake up from that into dream too you don't know it's a dream too you felt that I was dreaming now I have woken up and all those things were in the dream they are gone now but this is my real world it was there before I went to sleep and it's there now and this goes on merrily until you wake up from that into the waking world from dream to into the waking and you realize oh that was a dream the whole thing and the dream within a dream they call it picture in picture so dream within a dream the same example you can use when you you might sometimes people have experience of sleeping in the dreams and then waking up from sleep in dreams so the dream into you which you wake up will seem stable compared to what you dreamt there and when you wake up from that dream into this world you will see that this world seems pretty stable and that dreamworld it's it's a dream because it was just imagined it existed only while streaming but this really exists this will also seem like a dream gorup Arthur says when you realize this is actually dream 3 dream 1 dream - dream 3 but here you don't wake up into another waking world that is ad infinitum it can go on no it's not like that that doesn't happen here the comparison is with consciousness itself it's not that these will disappear in you will set up you will set up in some Brahmin bed in a Brahmin apartment in a Brahmin world and going to work your Brahmin dog in a Brahmin Park no it's going to be this very appearance but you will realize all of this is an appearance in consciousness all of this is an appearance in consciousness just now right now it has no independent existence outside the consciousness which you are it's all in you as consciousness not in you as the body just as in the dream world the people and the things that you see they are all in you but not in you as the person who is in the dream they're the person seems to be limited and every weather person seems to be different from him but when the person wakes up realizes the whole thing was in the mind similarly when we become enlightened not wakes up in that sense when you become enlightened he suddenly see this whole thing including this body including this person it's all appearing in this background consciousness which you are that awareness within each individual and that awareness is the fundamental reality of the universe why because the whole universe appears as as in is experience there it is that one consciousness appearing as the objective universe so everything in that universe is actually in that consciousness so that's what will be realized it's not that then the things will be seen to persist from time to time then you realize they never wear at all it was consciousness alone so that's what God Apollo says let's see the verse so titik Allah he untouched to those which are which exists only in dream time internally within you they are dreams do a collage to a by he but the external things they exist from time to time they have constancy as you said stability but he says Karl pita a what a survey all of them are imagined in one consciousness that exactly the same thing you can see in your dreams also when you wake up from one dream into another one which you don't know it's a dream when it's only when you wake up from that into waking you will realize you had two dreams actually so you realize they are imaginings vitiation are nahi tu caja there is no speciality in them in the waking state in the so called persistence of the waking state there is no you uniqueness you could have experienced this in your dream also one dream versus another dream you experience the the higher-order dream as persistent and the dream in a dream as less persistent than that alright then the last one clarity clarity of perception the argument here will be look objects in the dream are vague mental not clear confused but objects in the waking world are clearly defined I can see so well I can hear so well I can touch it's it's solid somebody put it this way objects in the world the waking world are industrial-grade reality and objects in the dream world are virtual reality running on very low computing power so they are not real they are imaginings in the mind this is real why the argument is that's vague and this is clear now and it's true so it's how we experience it when you compare the two the answer given here is slightly a variation of the argument which code about the use what is the answer 15 Abita eva yentas - objector eva yentas - buta a virtue ibrahim Scutari virtue ibrahim culpa tao eva t cervical PITA a bottie serve a vicious twin reenter a vicious twin reenter e he says the argument is this that which is seen inside in a dream dream in a mind that is not clear object in this sense is not fully manifested is not fully defined lacks clarity it's confused it's vague it's mixed up Butare a virtue a BA he that which you experience outside that means in your waking state it's clear it has definition clarity solidity so these are real and that's just a dream and you cannot equate the two he says both are equally false why because the difference is created by the instrument with which you are perceiving here with the waking eyes you see in the sense organs you're using sense organs to see and hear and smell and touch remember the definition of waking state given in the homophony shot when the consciousness pragya when the consciousness is turned outward through the body and sense organs into a world it is said to be waking when the consciousness is turned inwards and imagines a world within it is said to be sleeping in the consciousness is involved in itself no distinction of no or unknown it's said to be deep sleep so in the waking state we are using the set of sense organs to experience the world and gives a clarity which is natural to those sense organs even here I could see much better earlier now then I see without glasses it seems vague to me does it mean it's a dream no it just because sense organs are not working so well anymore in the dreams the whole set of sense organs which you use in your dreams they're all imagined in the mind so the mind generates an image there and so it has an appropriate vagueness whatever the mind can do depending on the graphics card that you are running in your mind that extent it will generate the thing it's because of the difference even in the waking state swami vivekananda this example right here if you could have one more sense organ you would see this this very world very differently so imagine a rattlesnake has infrared sense its scent it can actually see in one sense heat being radiated of our bodies bats can see ultraviolet sounds can hear ultra bytes an ultrasonic sound that echolocation they do dolphins or the whales have sonar it's a sense imagine that world we can't imagine actually Thomas Nagel who is a very famous philosopher he wrote a seminal paper what is it like to be a bat so what would be a bats inner experience it would be very different from ours the inner experience conscious experience would be very different from ours because of what not because ours is false and their experience is real no nothing like that is nothing to do with reality or falsity it's just because the set of sense organs is different similarly the set of sense organs you are using you are using your sense organs of the body in the waking and you are using only the mind in the dream and hence your experiences are different this does not mean the objects seen in the waking a real and object seen in the dream are false so this is the argument for objections and notice god about the counter these objections on their own ground he did not use his his nukes nuclear the two things in his arsenal that because it's an object of consciousness and because it is a beginning and end he doesn't use those when you say utility he says dreams dream objects have utility in dream and making objects of utility in baking and more so waking objects do not have utility in dream it's no use complaining the dream objects have no utility in way hence their faults the opposite is also true so this argument does not stand you cannot save waking and dreaming a different because utility because of utility no second argument is externality things which have exist outside the nor outside our minds are real which are only in our minds our thoughts but the same experience you have in dreams also there are things outside you you in as a person in the dream and there's things inside you as you the person in the dream how would you know that you would if you use that argument you would say that's real until you wake up and see the whole thing was a dream so you cannot distinguish between dream and waking on the basis of externality because the same experience of externality and internality is done in dreams also you get that experience the third ik was stability or consistency across time in the language here Doyle Carla two points of time they're connected the waking world remains constant from one day to the next day but he says they exist exactly the same thing you can say when you wake up from a dream into another dream you would feel that you have woken up into a consistent waking life and that one was a dream the whole thing is negated when you wake up into this world and God our Father says the whole thing will be negated including this world when you realize it's all in one consciousness the fourth argument was clarity of perception the clarity of perception depends upon the instruments you are using for perception whether they are sense organs or something imagined in the mind that's why the clarity is different but that does not make the object perceived through those instruments any more real for our arguments now we have no more time but let me just tell you what's what's there what on the in the verses we skipped we'll go back to them they are very beautiful verses 11 12 and 13 we'll go back to them but I think we'll go back to them when we don't have any class next week so we will go back to them in September but let me tell you what's there this is exactly what happened in the Janaka story do you remember when Janaka was told by the saij that that is false dreams are false this baking is also false what was janaka's reaction is nothing nothing true then dreams are false this waking is also false you are saying then is nothing true and the reaction here is that is nothing true then the tenth verse asks then what is true we always took dreams to be commonsensical approach was dreams are false because their dreams but the waking life is true this is where we live our lives this is where we make our homes in our waking life but if this is also false you have pulled the rug out from under my feet and what is true that's the question second question you'll ask is if these are false these are appearances whose imaginings are they to whom are they appearing it's using the Waker is also false the dreamer is also false and to whom are they appearing and the answer will be very beautiful we will see it in the fall but I can't resist chanting that verse for you that's the twelfth verse the answer is culpa khatma not Mon embody verse Omar yo yo sorry boot duty paid on ETV don't tarnish Chaya Dave ahah it says the bright one the shining one who is literally devil means God the Lord the God imagines the entire universe in his own self but the name used for God is very interesting daiva it literally means the shining one who is the shining one its consciousness it's you by your own power so Maya you you project an entire universe within yourself and you project yourself also into that into that virtual reality in this body and body and mind sorry Ava Buddha here on that very consciousness itself becomes identified that a body and mind and experiences the debate on the different entities which are projected and forgets the background reality forgets the rate it's a radiance forgets the radiance and thinks I am a body and a mind and experiencing solid objects out there people out there et layed on Tanisha aha this is the conclusion of Vedanta so very dramatic verse I quoted Updike of all people yesterday those were there at the Rubin you remember it's a beautiful line I came across a John Updike he says we skate on an intense radiance which we do not see wait for it because it is all we see because it is all we see we skate on an intense radiance imagine those ice skaters in Bryans Bryant Park on the ice the skating around we are scaling on an intense radiance you see it's an intense radiance I don't see any of it where is it you don't which we do not see he says which we do not see but why not because very interesting because it is all we see so what do you mean everything that you are seeing is that intense radiance intense radiance is Brahman little ritual the word here is Deva but very interestingly in one of the verses composed by Shankar Acharya disciple Padma pada the word he uses for Brahman is Maha Teja intense radiance but that was 1400 years ago I salute that intense radiance appearing as sentient beings appearing as a world full of pleasure and misery transmigrating from life to life this entire drama of existence played across lifetimes all of it what is appearing as this i salute that intense radiance which appears as this day jaha Maha so does that mean that somebody who experiences this yes yes at what stage is a good question both Padma pada and Updike also would say wait a minute what did I just say it is all we see so when you say when you experience that radiance a writer will say to you you are experiencing it now this is the thing we think that something extraordinary will happen and then I will experience it it is true something extraordinary will happen when that intuitive breakthrough comes it is extraordinary and unforgettable but you know what will be or what will be your enlightenment at that time I always was experiencing it it's not like suddenly the light is switched on and I see a lot of light no you always where experiencing it but you thought it was a body a mind it was people God bad friends strangers plants and animals and stars and planets that's what you thought it was it's all of this is nothing other than radiance we skate it say what a beautiful language we skate on an intense radiance which we do not see because it is all we see if you saw two things separately you could distinguish but you do not you see that only one thing I mentioned it to Deepak Chopra yesterday and immediately he said oh like a fish the classic example of a fish in water which swims and then the teacher fish comes and says there is something called water what is it it's above you it's below you behind you in front of you every and little fish goes this way that way because it is all it sees it very difficult to distinguish its it's the fundamental constituent background the screen of all our experiences right now now you will say all right granted but doesn't at at one point don't we become aware of it don't we become wouldn't we recognize it yes remember it will you will recognize it as always having been there that is extraordinary now your second part of your question a very good question right that is it post facto after that when you say when you write a nice verse on it in Sanskrit or write Manduca carica so it was something that I experienced and now I'm writing about it this is what you're asking know even when you are writing it right you see what you are thinking about is how could you write it if everything is a radiance then where is the body and where is the notebook and but what did I say they are not two different things when you say when you say it is all that we experience what are you experiencing now I'm experiencing people and places and things and my life and my body and mind and the story of my life that is the radiance but you don't see it as the radiance you see it as disparate things as as he uses the word paid on fractured reality it's a very nice word Veda means differentiated dualistic differentiated reality that's what we are experiencing it as the enlightened person will recognize it as that radiance but will also see the differences Ramakrishna except when he's in Samadhi when he's out of Samadhi he recognizes Naren and the Kali temple and la2 and all of that the whole story he sees people he sees the body he knows what his food and it's we put in his mouth he knows all of that and yet he knows all of that is Brahman it's not an ex post next post fact what's the word s ex post facto thing no it's a knowledge once you recognize it once you recognize that all the jewels are made of gold now when you are writing it all the duels are made of gold had to suddenly stop being gold for that moment no it's they are there or do it is an important thing the world doesn't disappear from you in that sense the world is now recognized as being Brahman that's why the dream example has to be understood carefully dream example has to be understood carefully why one possibility of misunderstanding is from dreams we actually wake up into a waking world and the dream world disappears if you apply that you'll be mistaken it's not that's why I said it's not that when you become enlightened you wake up from a breaking world into a Brahman world in your Brahman apartment with the with a Brahman bed and a Brahman dog to walk in a Brahman part no no no there is no such separate state that's why I mentioned Turia is not a separate state waking is a separate state dream is a separate state deep sleep in separate state Samadhi also you can say it might be a stress state coma might be a state these are all states of what of one unifying consciousness that unifying consciousness is there in waking it's there in dream it's there in deep sleep also yes are you seeing this so a do it acknowledge is not contradictory to the appearance of the world you can still experience this world and function very happily in this world what are doing technology does is it destroys the ignorance about the reality of this world all right Kishen yes yes enlightenment makes you fearless not really makes you fearless your fearlessness is actually the characteristics of your real nature when Janaka the emperor attained enlightenment his guru told didn't tell him that you have become enlightened he said O'Brien why proptosis Janaka Oh Emperor Janaka you have attained fearlessness right we are afraid fear is the fundamental instrument of off Maya which keeps us trapped in this world we are afraid why are we afraid fear comes from limitation the moment I limit myself and how do I limit myself I see a difference between me and you the one who sees the slightest difference here in this universe to him fear comes I'm translating directly from the type theory open assured yes yeah oh Dharam untrim karate does the abhayam bhavati who here seized is it good Arum the slightest of difference who sees here is immediately afflicted by fear what advaita does is it makes you fearless how it makes you non-dual there is nothing in this universe different from you the most awful things are not different from you the best of things are not different from you the vast is not different from you the microscopic is not different from you from you the consciousness so it makes you one with ever the universe one so I mean the Himalayas are condensers what he put it very nicely he said I'll tell you in Hindi and translate add weight Preity takoma tetani add weight up Kavya harmony robot vanity advaitha non duality does not erase the experience of the universe advaitha non-duality makes you limitless in this universe I can't exactly translate cat the tone of that the Hindi was Veera harmony rhubarb anata near bod means bhaga means obstacle attachment hatred last ego fear shrinking away from something the other that is what stops us in that is the limit to our own existence whereas advaitha dissolves that limit all of that is you where does it end I'll tell you the story I've told you earlier and ll end here because we have just about run out of time you have enough for this little story the story I told you earlier the story of the wave so a little wave is rushing towards the Atlantic shore here and it's born in the ocean so little wave comes up and sees oh it's a wonderful world and it makes other friends other little waves and they go to waves cool maybe and and the a little bit little wave plays and makes friends but very soon it sees there are problems what are problems some of the other little waves are friendly to it some are mean to it some of the waves are so big and this little baby looks at them and things I am such a loser I'll never be as big as that look at that Wow a tsunami wave so big I'll never be as big as that and when the little wave looks at a bubble that guys are losers it's tiny so there is inferiority there is a superiority there's arrogance and frustration and and so on friendships and enemies difference they're all different from me I'm the worst of problems comes up very soon sees that do something's happening at a distance it looks different what's going on there it asks its friend what's that Oh that's the Long Island Shore what's happening there that's where all the whales go to die I'm going to die yes everybody that every wave dies you're going to go and hit the shore and then go break into a million drops of water and to surf and that's the end I'm going to die yes so now this fear of death enters competition frustration jealousy arrogance inferiority and finally the overwhelming the sheer spectacle of death rushing at you and then the wave can see it it's coming until it sees there is a way Vedanta society in 92 and goes there and it is thought that wave mandu Cocalico it says look you are a wave yeah I know but there is an inner reality to you called water okay and this water is immortal it doesn't die Wow good for water but how does it help me look at yourself where is this water it's deep inside you who goes deep inside okay I get a get the idea but it's also on your surface it's an it's below you it's on your sides in fact you are true and true only water begins to get it oh I am water and what about all of this look at look around your neighbors the big wave and the little bubble and your friends and your so-called the little waves were being mean to you your enemies all of them are exactly the same water where is the boundary between the water in you and the water in the other waves no boundary immediately when that wave realizes at in a flash it becomes the entire ocean does it not it realized this all these arise in me as ashtavakra it can sing with ashtavakra my Ananta muhammad doing me the infinite ocean or at least atlantic ocean wish you Avicii suave arbiter the waves of this universe arise and and him and subside by their own nature they to us Tamayo Toonami Rodina moksha t let the waves come up let them subside I neither gain thereby not dwell lose anything thereby I'm always the infinite ocean and now when it real it there is no question of superiority over anybody who will be superior to what we are all the same one thing and who will be inferior who is going to die when I hit them hit the body the Long Island sure the wave I will lose the form but I the water I will remain in in droplets in surf when I am taken up by the sunrays ago as water vapor to the sky and then descend upon the earth in as raindrops and still water all throughout so the wave overcomes its problems the same experience continues but now it is limitless in the same way when we realize we are that background consciousness in Updike's words are in the words of pada pada Australia deja maha in the intense radiance when you realize that there is no limitation between me and you there is no desire anymore to protect this little body on a fear about the old age and decay and the sheer death of this little body doesn't matter I am NOT the body anyway it's an appearance it's a play in me the consciousness as is everything else so you reach fearlessness then you truly begin to live yeah so just like the wave got enlightened I pray to sri ramakrishna masha radha swami vivekananda made that knowledge descend upon us maybe not maybe they suddenly recognized as we go through our lives that intense radiance surrounding us drenching us all throughout our lives that and we realize our identity with it and find peace and happiness and joy and strength shantih shantih shantih hurry he owned that sat sri ramakrishna Aparna muster