Video 28

29. Mandukya Upanishad | Chapter 2 Karika 33-34

Oh bhadram Carini vishnu yama Deva bhadram posh a moksha barrage etre steerer here on guys - toboggans Aston OBE via Shima diva Heaton yada Yahoo swass Tina in drove read - wobba swass Tina pooja Vishwa Vida Faustina star show our astronomy swass Tina Bri Hospital Dada - OH Shanti Shanti Shanti so we are doing the Manduca carica and we are on chapter 2 we were on verse 31 which is the most important verse of the entire chapter chapter 2 and it's a pretty radical verse very shocking kind of verse because it says nany Roja notch out but Tina but Donna chisaka nama Mach sure Nava amok type date it Keshia Parramatta what does it mean it says that there is no there is no creation no cessation of the universe there is nobody in bondage nobody struggling to get out of bondage nobody doing spiritual practices nobody who's free also liberated also and this apparently is the final truth which is very shocking last time we discussed the whole the whole class was a discussion of this that the way we have understood Vedanta or in general spiritual life that there is a problem which needs solving we are in bondage and we need freedom from bondage and for that purpose there are certain practices to be done and we do these practices finally there's something to be attained where we become free enlightened and free and there is a word which has been somehow created and the world is created and destroyed and so there's a whole story which we have learnt and it seems pretty convincing and here the whole thing is denied the whole thing is denied and what it means of course we saw last time I will not repeat the whole class last times class but just to follow on from last times teaching we saw the commentary of Shankar Acharya we did a close reading of Shankar Acharya scum entry last time and he raised some important issues so that discussion will quickly sum up before moving on because that's germane to the what's going to happen now next what he said was so there is an opponent who raises a question the question is you denied everything creation of the universe there's no universe created obviously there's no universe there to cease there is no bondage there's no liberation there is no spiritual seeking there's no no spiritual practitioners denying everything now if you deny everything and you have not established non duality you've denied entire samsara so when we say do a little keep using the word duality don't by duality what we mean is this samsara which we experience this world of duality is which we experienced by duality is not meant here the dualistic religions because that's often that's the way we use the terms not dwight away dante it's not that's not the way the term was used in those days so by dualities meant just the world of differences that we see and inhabit this world basically the reality of this world is denied not the fact that we are experiencing it but that there is really such a thing that is denied now you've denied all of this and you have not established non duality look at the verse it denies duality that there is a world to get out of samsara to get out of there are practitioners who will practice certain spiritual disciplines and there are some people who are liberated all the things are denied this is a world the samsara world of dualities is denied fine but you have not established non-duality nothing about non duality is said in this verse do you notice this so the question arises then having denied the world of differences the only world we know and not having established anything else then the only result is emptiness shoonya the void nothingness so that's what you want to say there is nothing and then the answer was do you remember Shankar Acharya says no when you denied the reality of the snake what you are saying is the snake is an appearance the reality is that a rope a rope is mistaken to as a snake isn't that what we are saying Shankar Acharya said I have already mentioned this here as earlier so whenever you whenever you find out the falsity of something you're also implying there is a truth compared to the truth this is false so compared to the non-dual brahman this world of differences is an appearance though we experience it though we use it but it's not intrinsically real so even though the verse is entirely negative not this not this but it does not mean that there is nothing at all when you expose something as false you're also exposing the reality behind it then you remember the next objection immediately came that the snake rope example doesn't apply here you're giving the snake rope example it doesn't apply here because according to you according to you means according to us the non-dualistic even the Rope is false so the snake is of something false a rope appears as a snake the snake is false but the Rope is also false because everything in this world is according to you false so ultimately nothing will be revealed then everything is false so back to emptiness or shun Neum of the void and Shankara Cheri's answer there was no whenever falsity is revealed how do you reveal the falsity by discovering the truth underlying it so he gives an example the snake is variously the rope is variously experienced as a snake some say it's a snake some say some sees see it as a garland some see it as as a trickle of water or a crack in the earth and then the light of knowledge is brought to bear on it what happens all these alternatives all of them disappear except one are you following what I'm saying what will disappear somebody said it's a snake somebody said no no no it's a crack on the ground somebody said it's a it's a garland discarded from a temple all three alternatives disappear when you bring the light of knowledge to bear and so please just shine a torch on it all three will disappear what will remain the Rope the Rope is revealed and as the reality and the false alternatives are dismissed right so when the reality is uncovered the fault of the falsity of the others is exposed they are dismissed they are they are negated so when knowledge comes everything is not negated the reality is shown and the false is negated this is the question yes correct but here is using the rope as an example ultimately repulses negated the whole world is negated but it's an example the point he wants to make here in fact what you said Shankaracharya actually mentions that to the next line he mentions he says two things here remember the question the question was isn't the rope also negated ultimately in your in your system so by knowledge you negate everything that's that's your idea then non duality is not established Shankar Acharya says no wait he gives a two-fold answer the second one is what you said the first first answer is the first step is when you get knowledge of the Rope the Rope is revealed by knowledge and by that knowledge the false perceptions of snake crack on the water trickle of water all of those are negated point one point two he makes this what Stan just said negating something by knowledge always means that there is negator there is an awareness to which falsity and reality are revealed that awareness cannot be denied so that's the second thing he mentions now a really subtle question comes up next neck the subtle question which came up next is look in all of these cases what you did was you dismiss the false by revealing the truth you sure that the Rope is true and therefore the snake is false so you have to uncover the real in every case in sanskrit is called a dish done at the ground of error the ground of error the basis of error what is the ground of error rope is the ground of this snake error the error that I mistake the Rope for a snake what is the ground of that error what is the locus of that error the rope so rope is called a leash Tana now how does knowledge function it reveals the locus it reveals the dish town it reveals the ground and thereby negates the error with me so far with otherwise the next step won't make sense by revealing the additional by revealing the ground of error knowledge dismisses the false knowledge negates the false so the key is to reveal the the ground of error the key is to reveal the rope in the example rope snake example the key is to reveal the rope but in your case in the group goal here is not rope and snake the goal is Brahman and the world the ultimate reality and the world in this case the Shastra the opposition cannot reveal Brandon because haven't you said Brahman is beyond words you cannot reveal Brahman whatever you talk about it's not Brahman because words cannot reveal Brahman if the words cannot reveal Brahman Brahman remains unrevealed the ground of error is unrevealed how will you negate the defaults do you see the question the way to know that the snake is false is to reveal the rope it's a rope not a snake you must have such a knowledge such a knowledge must be possible in that case the way to know if you see in the world is false Brahman is real then the way to know this is to reveal Brahman show me Brahman then I will know that the world is false but you have also said Brahman is beyond words beyond language beyond conception so your texts cannot actually reveal Brahman in that case you are trapped without revealing Brahman you cannot prove the falsity of the world and Ramon cannot be revealed hence what will you do now what was Shankar Acharya answer very interesting answer he says wait a minute in every false perception there is a part of that perception is true in every I repeat in every false perception there is a part which is true which is correct and that is there underneath every false perception for example how do you say that when the rope was mistaken variously some person said it is a snake some person said it is a trickle of water some person said come on come on come on sit some person said it is a garland discarded Garland look at the sentences it is a snake it is a discarded garland it is a trickle of water now garland water trickle of water snake these are false they are not really there but the first part of it it is it is it is that's true because when you get knowledge what will you say it is a rope it is a rope is correct knowledge that means that it is was common to all of them not making sense it is making sense it is a snake it is trickle of water do you understand the examples also any anybody in the darkness a trickle of water will look like a little curvy little thing there on the ground a rope might look like that it is what was the other one a garland a crack in the ground or a garland discarded from a temple all of these are faults these are all false your false it's actually a rope it is the rope which was mistaken as one two three all mistakes are negated when you reveal a rope but then what knowledge will you get when you find finally get correct knowledge what will it be like it will be it is a rope now look at this it is it's common everywhere which means even in false knowledge when you said it is when you said it is it was that that part of the that part of the perception was correct so what's your point my point is Shankar Acharya says you know all our experiences throughout our lives the objective part things which we think I am happy I am sad I am tall short I am a man I'm a woman all of these are appearances and they keep coming and going and changing but one thing is common I am I am I am this sense of conscious experience the awareness in which all these adjectives come and go that is common and that is the truth and that is continuously revealed through every experience i am-ness the awareness and consciousness consciousness is continuously revealed in every experience so so so what now go back to your question your question was that without revealing the truth how can you negate everything and the truth in this case Brahman cannot be revealed what Shankar Acharya is saying is Brahman your real nature is continuously revealed it is being revealed by itself why because it is not like a like a rope which has to be revealed by a torch with your eyes the sense of I this awareness is always there all throughout your life it is in fact a very ground of all your experiences all your experiences throughout your lives are in the awareness which you are without that awareness no experience so that awareness they call it self revealed swap Prakash's Suellen prakasha the opener shoots again and again speak about it consciousness need not be revealed you say by what method will you reveal consciousness what scripture what technique will you reveal consciousness foolish question consciousness is self revealed it's like asking this light reveals everything in the room now do you need another light to reveal this light no this light is shining revealing itself first and then uses its like the light reveals everything in this room that's an example but consciousness is a light like a light it reveals itself continuously and reveals everything else also so consciousness is continuously revealed but the problem is consciousness is revealed in association with many things with a world of duality this world of duality alone is negated by the this verse once the world of duality is negated negated means you realize it is false it's not real and it's superimposed on you it does not belong to you it appears in you it is experienced in you but it does not stick to you it is not real and therefore I the unlimited consciousness becomes clear to me that I am this unlimited consciousness otherwise what happens is I the consciousness is continuously revealed but in association with many many qualities and attributes good and bad if you take those qualities and attributes to be real then you are in samsara if you take them to be appearances in you experiences in you and you being the unlimited unattributed consciousness you are immediately free so Shankar Acharya says here he gives a list of I think 16 attributes as examples we read that last time he says sukhiya hum I am happy dukhia hum I am am sad notice one thing common I am murim I am foolish confused I am Hamato I am born ah-hum Rito I am die I'm dead or if nobody sees I'm dead maybe you can say I'm finished I'm done for a lot of people involved Street when the market goes down and finished so finished Rito ah-hum jigna I am old Homme de Haan I am embodied hump a Shami I see smell hear especially means I see but you can extend it to all these sensory inputs I see smell hear taste touch I'm victim objector I am famous and I'm well-known or I am unimportant I'm not known ah hum Goethe I am the doer I'm Holly I'm the experiencer of the results of my actions got table booked I am the doer and and the experiencer I think this is what we in the guitar class last time to remember we did if the Slayer thinks he slays in this Lane things that he is slain neither know the truth Emerson's poem Brahma deep philosophically speaking what does he what is he saying that if you think you are the doer or if you think that you're the experiencer of the acts the results of action neither of them is true you are the consciousness in which these things are appearing sanyukta ha I meet people I am with people with family with friends with community ah ha Mukta ha I am divided of everything abandoned solitary in lonely a hyung Sheena ha I I am starved I am hungry de ha I am becoming old 16 if you count actually has given 16 examples it's not just these 16 anything that you may say anything that you add to I am all of these are negated by this verse negated by this verse means they are it does not say that you do not experience it what it says is that they are not real they are appearances in you and we know why are the appearances in you are the reasons it was established Goethe father used to hammer blows because Anita this chapter and it clear it is in it is impermanent it comes and goes if it comes and goes I am young not for long very soon gone this is a funny story about a young man a rabbi who is very young and the Kong people in the congregation complained to the chief rabbi that he's too young to be a rabbi and the chief rabbi wrote back you are right youth is a defect but give him time it's a defect eminently curable by time sir now what wait on the points out is I am young the youth is gone are you still there don't you say I were am the one who was young that means you are still there youth has gone happy sad from the morning till now how many times happy how many times said how many times curious how many times bored how many times sleepy how many times alert yet what vedanta wants you to notice note that you are the same awareness which experienced sad happy curious bold excited alert sleepy all those things came and went you are so those things are impermanent 0.1 and being empowerment we know the logic being impermanent they do not have remember intrinsic existence if you do not have intrinsic existence it's a borrowed existence and that's the definition of falsity the second one is drishya an object of awareness depends on awareness for its manifestation and existence it has no intrinsic reality of its own so for these reasons all these attributes are appearances in the unattributed consciousness nil guru Chaitanya in the quality less attribute less pure awareness which you are none of them stick to you and even when they appear in you they are not real they can really did that awareness is not modified by those things it's a very important point when you the consciousness experience yourself as happy when you experience yourself as sad that leaves no trace on you it has no effect on you the consciousness the consciousness remains as it is it it illumines the appearance of happiness it illumines the appearance of misery and it illumines the disappearance of happiness and the disappearance of misery also the underneath you the consciousness you remain unaffected unchanged so this is what he said one more point he makes which I did not touch upon last and very briefly I'll tell you then we'll go ahead so I am happy the happy portion is the appearance or I am sad the sad portion is the appearance it's not a real quality of consciousness consciousness is not qualified by it's not an attribute for consciousness so in that case not happy is that a quality then for example I will if I say that I am subject to birth and death and vedanta says no no no but then that come and go you experience them you are not affected find it by that you are the immortal consciousness ah so I am NOT a mortal being correct then I am immortal is that immortality than a quality of consciousness is it a quality of consciousness we got to good as an non-dualistic but a question like this may come I am the limited being here in this body Vedanta says no no no this body and limitation are experienced by you in dreams you see another body another world in deep sleep you see no body and no world blankness and so all of these come and go in you the awareness the awareness is not limited by them so I am unlimited awareness yes then unlimitedness is a quality of awareness I am eternal i am only present so these are qualities of awareness then awareness has qualities with antecessor Shankar Acharya says no no that's not the point those words are used to negate the misconceptions misconceptions are cleared up by the use of these words but it does not mean that these words also are new qualities for consciousness it does not mean that I thought I am immortal being subject to birth and death now I stand corrected I am an immortal being so micro new quality is immortality no Shankar Acharya is not even that if you don't use that word we are already convinced that I am born and I die we are already convinced I am subject to happiness and misery so these words negate the misconceptions once the misconceptions are negated these words also have to be dropped by dropping these words you do not swing back to the other extreme again you remain as that consciousness which is beyond expression the unattributed unattributed the quality less Annette the attribute list nature remains but you no longer can call it attribute lesser quality les I have also I have said when you say the Atman is all-pervasive as Brahman is all-pervasive in sanskrit serve of yuppie that is actually taking into account space space you take space into account yes then what we are talking about here is not limited to one part of that space but really even space is an appearance in consciousness so you cannot say Brahman is all-pervading actually if you say Brahman is eternal that is taking into account time if you take into account time as we always do then the mistake we make is that we are born in time there was a time when I was not and there will be a time when I will not be there just a mistake we make to correct that mistake we are told you are eternal but does it mean that I am something which persists throughout time actually no it means the time exists or appears in me I am NOT in time suppose in your dream in your dream there is a space which you dream about sky is there you know places where you visit now suppose someone tells you it's all in your dream and all the sky and space is pervaded by you everything here is you in one sense true but another sense all those things are not there at all so you are actually something beyond all those things they were imagined in you this is what Vedanta wants to say it does not say that ultimately when you say Brahman is sat-chit-ananda existence consciousness bliss even those are terms used to correct our misconceptions though when you say Brahman is existence itself it corrects the misconception that there is no such thing as Brahman there is in a much more real sense than everything else in the world when you say Brahman is consciousness it corrects the misconception that Brahman is something else an object no no it is you the conscious subject but ultimately Brahman is not even consciousness it's only in connection become mind Hermine senses and a world to be experienced brahman appears as consciousness to you if you remove the mind and the senses what in deep sleep for example even what we ordinarily understand as consciousness it disappears but the source of that remains the moment the mind comes it will shine with consciousness again it's like so as the consciousness gone then does Brahman become unconscious no no no no no no such but it's not experienced as consciousness it's like in deep space outside Earth's atmosphere it's actually flooded with light but what does it look like dark black if a comet goes through it the tail of the cop come it shines with light why is it generating light itself no no no it shines by reflecting sunlight which is flooding through space but because there is nothing to reflect it space looks dark it looks black similarly you are infinite consciousness but you will not be the word consciousness really cannot be attributed to you until there is a mind to manifest or reflect that consciousness so the reality which is indicated by such chit Ananda existence consciousness bliss continues but those words should be dropped those words are not qualities of that reality if you say existence infinite existence infinite consciousness infinite bliss are qualities of Brahman this is vashisht a greater this is not a greater Rishi stop the waiter says God has these attributes Ananta kalyana guna gana infinite auspicious attributes of God so that becomes a theistic religion in that case but these are the very nature of the self you are that that's non dual evident so he says even the words should be ultimately dropped once the function is is fulfilled Shankar Acharya ends on that point yes yes right yes of course I mean yes but be careful which I when I say I am real I the man sitting in that chair I am real no you have already limited the eye with a location with a form what did Shankara sorry chharia just said how do you experience yourself he gives sixteen attributes I am happy I am sad I am old I am worn out and he goes on sixteen attributes so is this the I am that is real no I am that is real is consciousness itself these ones are appearances this is subtle truth this part is mithya the false Falls does not mean totally on non-existent it appears dream is false we say so dream vici Janaka the empire Janaka he saw the dream but it was revealed that it is false now the ashtavakra is coming and telling him this world also you are seeing it's equally false that dream was an appearance in your consciousness this world is also equally an appearance in your consciousness a consciousness he said you alone are real when he says which you the Emperor Janaka is real no the consciousness which which is at the core which you are your being that is real now let's go ahead 33 so what follows two or three interesting observations go to father kids 33 bhave acid theory volume ba v rasa theory volume Audrina chuckle pita Audrina chuckle peter ha ba ba ba ba ba a pure joy neva power a pure joy neva the smart a Toyota Shiva the smart advaitha Shiva interesting observation the Atman alone is imagined to be the unreal things of the world dualities and it also imagined to be non-dual this world of samsara is superimposed or imagined on the non-dual reality on non dual self therefore non duality is auspicious advaitha Shiva now he makes a startling statement here duality is imagined imaginary false superimposed this we have been learned in duality means remember do ality here means samsara this world of differences but now he says non duality is also imagined interesting point we think we keep on hammering till this point that non duality is the reality and duality is false now he says once you have realized that also note that non duality is also imagined but there's a difference duality is imaginary and false non duality is partially imaginary in what sense is non duality imaginary the name non duality is imaginary imaginary or is set up to correct the error of duality but the object which is real but the reality which the name non dual refers to that remains that remains it's like saying in Vedanta what do we do I am NOT the body I'm not the mind I am the witness consciousness step one step two what do we do this body mind and world are the real things being witnessed by you the witness consciousness no they are appearances in you the witness consciousness correct this is what we do if the body mind and the world are appearances in witness consciousness they are not real things apart from that witness consciousness then are you really a witness I'll repeat that are you really a witness if there is no real second thing to be witnessed then in what sense are you a witness what if I'm saying that you are the pure subject all right next step I say to all the objects I reduce it back to you there's no real object apart from you then in what sense are you a subject but that does not mean you are not there you are there the word subject does not apply to you anymore the word witness does not apply to you anymore but though you are there exactly you are the reality which remains over but the word term witness does not apply to you anymore to understand this very nice example we it applies to monks when we become monks before that we are called Brahma cherries novices so we have a sheikah like a sacred tuft of hair so the tuft of hair when one becomes a sannyasi the tuft of hair is cut off and thrown into the sacrificial fire there's a ritual for that what does that symbolize the ritualistic the author-it that which gives you authority to perform Vedic rituals so Brahmin for example as a sacred tuft of hair and would wear a sacred thread so that means you belong to a particular group which will be the authority to perform Vedic rituals but when you become a monk you give that up you go beyond those groups particular straight up society to show that you are going beyond the Vedas yet going beyond ritualistic religion conventional religion you give up the science of conventional religion so that is the tuft of hair and the sacred thread which a Brahmin bears so we take that off and we put it with with appropriate mantras into the fire now what's the example here when the novice has before becoming a monk before becoming a Swami the novice has a sacred the tuft of hair the tuft of hair in sanskrit it is called chika chika so sheikah the one who has a chika is called cheeky one bearing ashika the one who has a sheikah is called a cheeky the one bearing ashika when you become when the person becomes some monk the sheikah is given up so you cannot use the word Shiki for that person anymore so you say the sheikh he has chica has gone and Toshiki also has gone chicky means one having the tuft of hair but does it mean that person has disappeared no now you you call him Swami so-and-so you called him Swami serve up a Ananda earlier my manavas name was brahmacari Gianna beretta Chaitanya I know a mouthful it means the knowledge whose vow is knowledge so I had a tuft of hair now when they perform the ceremony and I put off that cut of the tuft of hair and threw it into the sacrificial fire and so now I am NOT a Shiki anymore because I don't have a sheikah without ashika I cannot be a shaky so the Shiki is gone along with the sheikah but that does not mean I am gone I am now Swami serve of Creon and similarly when non-duality is dismissed by the understand when duality is dismissed by the understanding of non-duality all of this which we are doing there's no more duality then with respect to what will you call that reality a non dual non dual with respect to what there's no duality whatsoever so the word non dual is also dropped but that does not mean that reality disappears that reality is still there whereas what we thought to be real earlier the dualistic world that is truly gone the word duality is gone and the real what it correspond it to this experiences these this this thing this is definitely gone but the non dual reality continues only you cannot call it non dual anymore do you see the shade of distinction these fine things one must grasp if you want to say grasp something like ashtavakra ashtavakra for example there are things with there which are mystifying at first for example one day early in the in the morning I thought that I must have a very high non-dualistic thought where do I put my mind what do I think about towards the day the nature of the non dualist is always to think about brahman so I said let me open ashtavakra is a very good source of very non non high non-dualistic thoughts so I opened the book and I'll tell you the truth I opened it at a random page and the verse there said if anybody sees a transcendent Brahman let him think about Brahman but I do not see a second reality at all what my to think about you see the subtle mistake you make that there is a non dual Brahman and I must think about that that is good as a stage of practice but for a fully enlightened person will say what ashtavakra says there is no second thing to think about and I must think about which means to see the seed of ignorance hidden there that I am something I need to keep my mind on Rahman know what Brahman is there for you to keep your mind on only the only Brahman exists so this is the thing the term non dual is to be dropped but the reality just like the term Shiki was dropped but I still exist only then I am NOT a Shiki anymore the term subject is to be dropped but the pure subject continues to exist the term existence consciousness bliss is to be dropped but that which was referred to by that term that reality that's always there where as compared to that samsara we are talking over very fine distinctions here compared to that samsara which was called duality and Dwight them that samsara is exposed as being false and the word duality is dropped because it does not refer to anything real so there is no samsara and the word samsara is also dropped there's no duality and the word dwell it is also dropped in contrast to that non duality the non dual reality continues only you cannot correctly refer to it as non dual anymore so what he says here is both duality and non-duality are imagined the self you you are imagined as duality which when did I imagine myself as duality I have never do such philosophical things all the time the moment you say I am a Laker inhabiting a wakers universe I am the dreamer in my dream universe and the deep sleeper in my deep sleep universe and the blackness of deep sleep this is called do item duality where is it imagined in you datoria the pure consciousness this is what we learnt in the first chapter so in I the unchanging awareness I experienced myself think of myself as a Waker experiencing awaking universe both waking universe and Waker geographer puncher and Viswa both our appearances in you the Turia the pure consciousness the Ty Jessa and Sapna prep ensure the dreamer and the dreamers dream world both our appearances in you default to pure consciousness and the deep sleep you the sleeper and your blankness of deep sleep both our appearances in you the pure consciousness these appearances are duality this is what we think we thought it was real now it was far proven to us in the all that we have learnt now these are appearances and what is real is the non-dual consciousness the self was falsely known as dualistic or dual now it is real realized to be non dual but since the dual is not a reality so with respect to what will you call it non dual the word non dual also has to be dropped but the self continues you continue to exist you are the reality which continues to exist this is what you see yes you know I am is not dismissed you just will not use the term I am what it refers to will continue yeah the uses you need not use the term I am because the term I am also depends on using the mind but you will continue that I am will continue but you will not say that you have to continuously experience yourself as I am I am I am not necessary yes I come to you it is true remember chapter 1 is called a gamma proc Arana the the chapter on the open Ishod so the chapter 1 continues contains the entire teaching chapters 2 3 & 4 explore it in detail what we learned in chapter 1 we are now only beginning to discover the implications of that so chapter 1 taught us pointed out how we experience ourselves that I am of acre in of acres universe I am a dreamer in a dream universe that I am a deep sleeper this is not the teaching of chapter 1 because this is what we experience life as you don't nobody needs to teach me that chapter 1 used these three to point out the underlying non-dual consciousness compared to which these three pairs pairs means Waker and baker's universe dreamer and dreamers universe dream universe deep sleeper in the deep sleep merged causal potential blankness these three pairs are not real they are appearances the reality belongs to the underlying non-dual consciousness this is where chapter 1 stopped [Music] Upanishad which is part of chapter 1 yes [Music] true that was the methodology that is the methodology to point out the non-dual self the method is always to start where we are where are we we are I am awake ER in a wakers universe now show me how I am the non-dual consciousness so the Upanishads says look at your experience your experience as four aspects right so I am at Machado spot four aspects what are the four aspects way current wakers universe dreamer and dreamers universe always related to your experience deep sleeper in the deep sleep blankness so these three pairs are well known to us what the open issue teaches you is that notice all of these three they come and go underneath it you continue that I am that non-dual the fourth one is the reality which these three are referring to that I am this is the teaching of the OP initially and in the seventh mantra it also mentioned prop enjoy pochamma the cessation of the universe which the falsity of the universe by universe remember what is mentioned what is meant not only this physical universe waking universe but also the subtle universe our thoughts feelings emotions also the causal the Agana from which all of these have come all our appearances they are not realities that part is being expert explorers right I'll come to you you had a question yes reflected yes wait wait wait wait every remember when we use examples the question was do you use the example of light and space and you need a comet to reflect the light then only the light becomes manifest otherwise the light is there but we don't experience it what did I use it for consciousness and mind consciousness by itself is not experienced as consciousness what you are experiencing right now is a mixture of consciousness and mind of course plus senses and objects and all of that for that I used the comet and light in space now your question was if the light is the only reality where did the comet come from remember an example is used to point out only one thing so Ramakrishna says in the gospel poem I agree she an example is used to explain one aspect of it so always that that's where a teacher comes useful what is the example we're trying to tell me here the example is not that the light is the only reality I never mentioned that here the example was meant to show how light can be there yet not experienced at all to experience the pre-existing light you need a reflector like the comet otherwise you could have asked if light is the only reality when did space come from face is also there comet is also there so just as the comet reflects the light this is an example actually why I'm using the example is because just day four yesterday I was in Hartford Mark Twain's house and it's very beautiful if you go there you will see it's a museum now now Mark Twain was born in a little log cabin I think in Missouri probably and Halley's Comet was in the sky at that time Halley's Comet was there in the sky you know Halley's Comet it comes in once in 7576 years 76 years so there's a nice painting of a little log cabin and the dark night sky with stars and Halley's Comet in the sky so symbolizing that the birth of Mark Twain and Mark Twain always said in his life that I came with Halley's Comet and I shall go out again when it comes again I shall leave with Halley's Comet also he said that and amazingly the day he died that night Halley's Comet was and there in the sky so there is another painting next to that painting of the house where he died which is a much bigger house here close somewhere in upstate New York I think where he died finally and that's also a night sky with stars and everything and there is Halley's Comet in the sky so that's where I think in the background of my mind that's why I used the comet example what all the all I want to point out by this example is light which is there in the sky and just but space looks dark although so much light is there it takes a comet passing through it or why a comet it could be a moon it could be anything it could be a satellite then you see it shining similarly you remain as consciousness though it's not experienced as such it's only when the mind becomes active its thoughts your thoughts shine in consciousness and you say Oh Anna where I see I hear smell I remember I desire I I want I understand I forget all of these experiences our conscious experiences and these experiences belong to the mind and the senses but they are revealed by consciousness that's what we have been doing where did the mind come from where the senses come from where did the body come from where did the universe come from consciousness is self revealing but you ask where did they come from so the whole of second chapter we did did you find 35 answers were given 35 answers take your pick what is the question you are you're asking you're asking where did the universe come from what is the answer we have we had a weird list of 35 answers do you remember God created the universe the core cause is time somebody said fate karma is created the universe 35 answers and God our Father dismisses all of it dismisses all of it because they all followed the criteria there are objects and they are impermanent they come and go then what was the answer finally of God or father what about the universe verse number 31 what did what does it say never created never ceasing the universe you answer to a question where did it come from where did the universe come from where did the body come from where did the mind come from gora father's answer is very counter-intuitively it never came where will they go it will never go that we just never come will never go and beginningless endless our immediate misconception is old it must be done eternal universe is eternal beginning literally they are and endlessly their gorup Allah is saying it is beginningless li not there and endlessly not there but appearing appearing and the example he gives the-dream example if the same question you asked in the dream where does this universe come from what's the answer to that it didn't come it's an experience in the dreamers mind this is an experience in consciousness but there is no creation means it has something has been produced so if it has no existence apart from consciousness it has not really been produced you see how profound these observations are they're very reason these questions are coming again and again is although the answers have been given it's only it's after some time it begins to dawn what a radical statement that God our Father is making it's it's no small thing - the reason why people get profoundly disturbed by these things is because how deep they run it's only after a lot of thinking at first we may say yes yes I've understood I understood then we asked finally how did the universe come that's what we have been doing for the last one year now they know it's good the question has come and then we begin to realize oh my god this is what he said then what is going on here nothing is going on here except you the consciousness that's the answer you had a question I'll come to you yeah constant yes correct yes right what we are trying to say here is when you say I am Brahman or Atman or pure consciousness I'm not saying anything different from the I am itself the I am itself is Brahman if you realize the nature of the I am continuously present to you in all your experiences your found Brahman what is normally happening is this I am which is by niche by I am I mean consciousness I am is just the language I'm using for that this is infinite undivided continuous it gets associated with all these sixteen or many many attributes and then feels limited and feels like what we call a sum sorry in itself it's not as I'm sorry this I am is what what yes you had a question its I am is what Ramana she said find out who you are it's a pure I am NOT these things remember he's not even telling you to dismiss these things just note that they are not you not you nor yours they appear and pop in and out of your awareness don't be associated with them then you are free it is not even saying that don't experience them shut your eyes to them no let them come and go we take them to be real we hug them to ourselves and then we say we are trapped we are unhappy yes yes I am don't go too much on this I am if you want to call this M ness correct no problem what is amnesty but being awareness such it what is the fundamental quality of fundamental reality about yourself that you are real and it's not just a dark reality it's a shining reality if I put it that way yes there is only in fact I am consciousness only means I am that is consciousness itself it's not I am something else which is consciousness no I am that and that's what continues but also one more additional fact I don't know if this is creating a problem if you read mr. conductor he makes a distinction between he uses the words consciousness and awareness yeah and this leads to confusion remember the original words he used that Marathi so what for example sometimes says that a death the body will go mind will go consciousness also will go consciousness is not the ultimate reality but what he means by consciousness there is that empirical consciousness of the mind every night it goes away when you fall asleep in deep sleep so what he calls awareness or in the English translation his awareness is what I am calling consciousness here is equal to M Ness is equal to roughly equal to the I am yeah it's not a very precise way of putting it I'm just here I'm just indicating that there is something continuous in all your experiences yeah and that continuous part if you search for it you will never find it we should search for it you will only find an object you will either find objects thoughts feelings emotions or the absence of objects in deep sleep or Samadhi but the one which reveals the presence and the absence of objects that is not an object in itself that's the real you mate I think standed you have a question that is true that is true nothing yes no you are basically a sannyasi it's just you're giving the given the formal the name and the those things come later on but you give up one form it's what you're saying in the transition period you are that pure consciousness of course you have the pure consciousness all the time but this there is a funny thing about that you know when you become a monk you perform in the in Hinduism there's something called the Shraddha which is the rituals performed for ancestors who have passed away and so you perform that for somebody who's passed away now that's also a ritual once you become a monk you are not allowed to perform those features because you have given up all claim to being a ritualistic Hindu anymore now what happens is then who will perform those rituals for your ancestors once you become a monk so - to fulfill your obligations before you become a monk you perform all those rituals the Shraddha has performed for all your ancestors who have passed away including which is never done otherwise including your living father and mother also so that's also performed so that because after they die you cannot perform anymore because you already become a monk and including for yourself it's the usually the children to perform these rituals for their parents but become being a monk so you will not have any children so there's nobody is going to perform that for you so you perform it for yourself we are living it's called at Masada and so if then it is finished that is done before you become a monk and one day before that so the joke was that the ones these novices have performed the shelter it's done for people who are dead so you're dead also so you are called a bunch of ghosts you're not yet a monk and you are formerly dead to society so in between here felt like a bunch of ghosts yes I've come to you you had your hand up yes because neither created nor destroyed because because it doesn't exist yes not because it always exists not because this is eternal there's some theories that world is not created because the world so they're not of little things involved in that question you don't even have to go into the wave and ocean example you can straightaway ask about us you see all this is due to ignorance and the ignorance is being corrected by knowledge in Vedanta but if you ask where did the ignorant start that's what I'll you're asking right how many times have answered this in the closet don't worry I'll go on answering it until there till that not till the end of time till the end of ignorance okay so how does ignorant start Shankar Acharya says ignorance is beginningless on are the vidya beginningless if you ask if you say beginningless that sounds like a cop-out you are avoiding the question how can it be beginningless note that here God our Father said the world is beginningless it doesn't exist in the same sense ignorance is also beginningless beginningless how can ignorant be beginningless you say so if you say that why does ignorance start how does ignorance start and the answer is its beginningless it's another way of saying that there is no beginning - ignorant if there's no beginning to it then you cannot ask why it began basically it's another way of saying the question is wrong the question itself is wrong Swami Vivekananda says how did the one become the many how did the one become the many one means Brahman if there is a one and it is appearing as the many how did the one become them in the first answer will be with God our Father has given that the one did not become the many the one appears as the many so the many is false if something is appearing appearance the word appearance means falsity so the many is false the one is real but you can still ask why is the one appearing as the meaning why do you follow why did the one become the many answer no it did not the one is the still the one it appears as the many but why is the one appearing as the many if you ask and then the answer will be it the question is wrong but I have explained earlier also look at that point Swami Vivekananda Shankar Acharya also leaves it but I persisted in asking why is the quest we can ask why is the question wrong I can ask the question why is the 1i feeling at all Brahmin could have remained as Brahmin why is it appearing as the world okay I even admit the world is false where Dante says Brahmin is real the world is false the world is like a dream but why is it at all appearing in this way at all if you ask that the question itself is wrong why is the question wrong after all if you ask why am I seeing a dream there is a answer to that that we had these experiences in your waking State and therefore you are having such a dream good answer to that but about the world itself this appearance you are saying it appears and if you ask why does it appear answer is the question itself is wrong why is the question wrong in the logic which I gave because of Maya you're asking why Maya why is there Maya at all why is there Maya at all the question is wrong why is the question wrong look at what you are asking when you ask why what answer will satisfy you because you want a cause you want a cause perfectly valid you can you're right in asking for a cause but if you ask for the cause of a cause of causation itself then the question is illogical Maya is time space causation like if you say what is outside space the question is wrong if you ask what is outside the word question is correct what's outside the hall question is correct what's inside the building question is correct but what is outside space if you ask question is wrong why because outside and inside our space words without reference to space you cannot ask outside inside if you ask what was there before time the time began with the Big Bang you ask what was there before time in a certain sense the question is not correct because before and after a time words you can ask what was there before the earth was created you can ask what was there before we were born but you can't ask what was there before time this before and after words only when time is there then you can ask before and after similarly you can't ask why for causation you can't ask for a cause of causation because cause and effect begins with causation for anything in the universe you can ask what is the cause of this but what is the cause of causation slip is a meaningless question so only when you accept causation then in causation cause-and-effect operates correct so this question when you say Y Maya you are basically asking why causation makes no sense there this was in fact one of the great discoveries of guru pada this is called a Java vada he says that Brahman is beyond causation Brahman is not causally linked to this universe just as this universe is not causally linked to your dream universe your dream universe was not actually produced from this universe so the world was not produced from Brahman yes it's not real not a real yes yes yes yes but you make a distinction between our consciousness as the consciousness reflected in the body mind of one person and the world of science which is external to that that consciousness it's not that gravity exists in Newton's consciousness it's in that one consciousness is talking about where Newton and gravity both appear yes language yes in consciousness correct right correct correct none of this is real correct including these teachings yes yes absolutely absolutely in fact they say that once one become enlightened lettre Veda of a labyrinth where Vedas are no longer Vedas they don't apply to the one who has imposed enlightened because you have realized that the reality which underlies all these teachings also these teachings are only appointed to that reality goes away means yes in fact that alone exists these don't exist as they seem to exist it becomes like suddenly when you realize it's a movie doesn't mean the movie goes away the movies still playing you realize a deeper truth from that the movie it's a movie there's a screen which is real compared to that screen all the characters and events in the movie are not real but in the movie itself the plot remains the same whatever the director had planned that remains to same even when you realize it's a movie it's still exactly the same and that experience will continue with anthesis let the experience continue it's a movie then it's entertainment it is Hollywood it's fun then it's only when you do not realize the underlying reality to be yourself then it becomes samsara you're trapped in it it's like being trapped in a movie like a horror movie for example without knowing that it's a movie then it becomes terrible if you don't like the unreal real binary try what Swami Vivekananda guess yes yes yes non duality non-duality is a technique meant to point out the falsity of duality and the reality beyond that we call it non dual but that also term has to be given up because it's technically no longer correct if there is no real duality at all yes it's a technique to set you free from it so this has always been applied this approach and they say that there is a when you light light a fire there is a log of wood which you set on fire and then right up it's called a funeral pyre a lighted when it's burning then you throw that burning log of wood into the fire itself that block of wood is also burnt up in that sometimes you put a chemical in the water which dissolves impurities and the chemical itself gets dissolved similarly non-duality is a concept which sets you free from the samsara of duality does not mean non duality also disappears the reality which you call non duality that remains just like I remained but I'm not called a Shiki anymore Shiki is gone does not mean I am gone similarly the term non duality no longer applies but that reality remains as as you you are that here they are trying to be very fine and precise so that terrorists similar process is applied by Narayana in the in the mullah madam aqaq Erica suniye bother the philosophy of emptiness in Buddhism so there instead of non duality to use over term norm duality also they use the word Shu Neum which means wide void emptiness and there's a very nice verse there which Nagarjuna's written he was about 500 years before God upon himself he says there emptiness Sunita is meant to set you free from the illusion of a concrete objective reality but those who take emptiness itself to be the reality for them there is not for them there is no hope yeah so they have a topic called emptiness of emptiness but that's the final thing that then you have to let go of that emptiness also but you remain as the reality which is so the emptiness is a technique to set you free non duality here also is a technique like that but be careful here it does not mean that Brahman which non duality refers to that Brahman disappears no just the term non duality is no longer appropriate when duality is dismissed yes correct correct as I think Swami Raghu not eaten until I forget who it was one suam in the Bay Area he said then on this side of Maya we have questions and no answers and on the other side of my they have the answer so you're not on the other side yes [Music] all right this question of free will question of free will well ultimately there's no free will either but remember the moment we say there is no free will that means am I saying it's all a deterministic universe no it's not that's not what we're danta wants to say so there is this beautiful article by our in them Chakravarthy which i had recommended if you want I can share it with you he has written a beautiful piece on an essay on free will the problem of free will the question the article is titled why pray to a God who can hear the anklets on the feet of an ant Sri Ramakrishna says God hears everything so you know you pray to God God somebody asked does God hear our prayers he said God hears your prayers God can hear the anklets on the feet of an ant you little boys and girls in India they put they put anklets on the feet so imagine an ant this has tiny feet and how tiny the anklets will be and how to subtle the sound God hears the sound of the anklets on the hands feet now random Chakraborty asks this question if God knows all of this then why even why bother to pray also to go to or God God will know what you want and then dispose of your prayer the way he wants to so why even pray to a God who hears the sound of the anklets on an aunt's feet basically it's a question of free will so in that article what he has done is first of all he has examined the whole field this is in fact the reserve right now a lot of discussion is going on on free will there's an I think Oxford Companion to free well that book is there so a lot of in philosophy in neuroscience it's a very big issue injustice legal system if you have free will then one can be punished which we don't one does not have free will insanity argument then you cannot be or at least the quantum of punishment has to be reduced all the treatment has to be given something like that so legal issues philosophical issues nowadays neuroscience issues what is the neuroscience of freewill is there a free will at all so he examines the whole field he does the in that paper he does it in three levels first level he says it appears to us that we have freewill when you examine it he gives three possibilities yes we have freewill or there is no freewill determinism everything is determined or what he calls or what is in the field it is called compatibilism three will is also there determinism is also there three these are not three theories but three groups of theories in each group there are different theories so he does a very masterful survey of all the theories and basically what you see is we feel they have freewill just like you said I choose and I'm leading my life according to my free will but when you examine it how you examine it through philosophy through neuroscience today he gives us the data under those findings the scary revelation is that death they can't be anything like free will we feel via free will and science and philosophy shows that we cannot have free will even religions seems to say we don't have free will it's all God's will see Ramakrishna would say again and again so second level upon investigation no free will then he comes to the third and final level he says yes ultimately there is not free will but freedom so he says free will day to day we it appears to us and we live our life like that otherwise society would not be possible just the legal system itself would not be possible equip if you don't attribute freewill to a person so we live our life like that upon examination no free will and deeper when you come to spirituality wait on thought what Shri Ramakrishna says no free will but freedom you see this is freedom but there is no will here yeah consciousness is free absolutely free from everything it's infinite and free so that article is worth reading somebody else at a question yes no no it is just the way of putting it because the ego also will disappear in a deep sleep for example but deep sleep is also an experience to consciousness here the I am is referring to consciousness the moment you own I am happy I am sad I am old I am young that is the ego ego is an operation of the mind even that operation of the mind appears to consciousness the ego also are you not aware of the activities of your ego you're aware of it what is aware of the activity of the ego that is what I mean by I am here yeah if you strip away all of this from the I am then you will go beyond ego the ego is a functioning of the mind okay all right let's go ahead let's do one more verse number 34 so what did we learn in 33 Bhave rossabi raver I am a trainer chuckle PETA I am this self you the self pure consciousness you are imagined as a samsara of dualities as these false appearances power acid be if you assert Vibha be by these false appearances you experience yourself it's literally what we did in the first chapter you the consciousness how do you experience yourself Baker and Baker's world dreamer and dream world by these false appearances is the is the self seen in duality the same self is also imagined as non dual when by all these teachings so both are equally false no not equally false the second one is the concept which sets us free from the falsity of the first one so he says bhava appeared when Ava all these appearances in the world whether in waking world or dream world they are all imagined ultimately on the non-dual self by realizing the non duality of the self the falsity of the universe the falsity of duality is realized therefore he says the smoth advaitha Shiva therefore non duality is auspicious auspicious not the final truth the final truth will be on this also you cannot express it you are that you are that final truth but to reach that non duality is auspicious non duality is the one which sets you free from this from samsara the duality as long as you take the duality to be real you're trapped in samsara and you are affected by the sufferings of samsara when you use non duality to realize the falsity of duality you are set free from samsara and then you realize the technically it's also not non dual technically it's beyond language that's just a technical matter you remain as that in fact another verse later on he will say some prefer the atomic chant occasion advaitha magenta chopper into a tarde weight of Ajit am doctor he says some prefer duality some prefer non duality the truth is beyond duality and non-duality but that cannot be expressed in language even non duality itself cannot be expressed properly in language but you the thing is that you are the truth it's not an unknown truth so he says then are both imagined but not in the same sense non the duality is false in name and as the things themselves are false and then term also is false and it traps us in samsara and it is productive of great misery this is the problem we are trying to transcend non duality is the way what it refers to Israel only the term itself has to be discarded once the work is done in duality what it refers to what does it refer to this world that's false and the term itself is false non duality what it refers to is true you the real the brahman but the term non-duality is only with reference to duality once duality is seen to be false non duality itself loses all reference just yesterday and comes just yesterday we were reading in the gospel of Sri Ramakrishna Ramakrishna says when I come down come down from Samadhi I tried to count from one to ten and I say one two then seven eight or something like that and then somebody remarked oh it's because all is one immediately sri ramakrishna corrected him it is neither one not two it is beyond one in a bit it is beyond one and two this is exactly what he's trying to say you see he's not saying it philosophically because he sees the truth for him it's absolutely clear he also wants to make those fine corrections that don't mistake it to be and somebody said if you are very fond of Advaita wada advaita wada means the philosophy of advaita if you are very fond of adwaita wada you will get the philosophy of advaita if you are very fond of advaitha brahman you will get brahman advaita what is a structure to help you which we are learning then let's take that so what to take away from this is advaitha Shiva non dualities auspicious number 34 not Mohave nano needham not Mohave no no Needham no suena peak attention naswinger peak at Anjana nope written Oprah tuck in Jade nope return a Peter Kincaid 8212 IDO we do who it is that we do we do who then what is this world back to what we are experiencing and what is the nature of this thing it's a mystery he says this year this world when ascertained from the certeyn from the standpoint of its essential nature does not exist as differ from the self from you the self it does not exist as the self so do phenomenal things do not exist as different or non different from one another or from the self this is what the knowers of truth understood those who have realized enlightened they realized this this world what is this world is it a separate reality from yourself this is what we understand not not right now this is samsara this is no it does not if you try to ascertain its nature apart from consciousness you will not succeed then is this world consciousness itself that also you cannot say why can you can you not say this world is consciousness are we not trying to say it you may try to say it by force because it's a non duality class but no it's not identical to consciousness why consciousness is eternal this world is non eternal consciousness is the pure subject this world is an object consciousness the consciousness is conscious its consciousness the world brahma disguise the self is consciousness the brand the world is what is called Jannah in sentient so in every aspect this world is different from consciousness how can it be identical to consciousness yet it cannot exist apart from consciousness we saw it has no intrinsic existence it's an object to consciousness so is it a part of consciousness is it a part of consciousness is this world a part of you the consciousness cannot be again because consciousness has no parts Brahman is partly a kind of spotless so this what is this world this is what is called in Vedanta Anil Virginia cannot be said to be absolutely real yet cannot be dismissed as totally unreal because you experience it all those things in the dream which you saw the people you bet the events which happened the places you visited are they you in one sense yes but are you a park and a dog and and your friends and your all those things you experience in your dream are you all those no not really do they exist not from you in your dream no not really are they part of you lots of people in places part of you who know then what are they so in the same way this world they were that we experience is paradoxical in fact modern science also I mentioned this earlier as reading a book on gödel who was in Princeton University who is one of the leading mathematicians logicians of the world incompleteness theorem so Rebecca Goldstein I think who has written a book on Codell where did I read she writes that the greatest discoveries of the 20th century in science if you look at the names Einstein's theory of relativity Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty and gödel's incompleteness theorems and two of them incompleteness theorems now if you contrast it with what scientists start in the 19th century where thought science is progressing so well so within 50 years 30 years 40 years in every field they thought the speeds will be completed will have perfect knowledge if you had asked them what do you think will be the theories of twenty in hundred years later they would have not said relativity they would have said certainty they would never have said absolutely it's not relativity they wouldn't have said uncertainty they would have said certainty in mathematics they would have said completeness not incompleteness in fact I think there was a program Hilbert's program something the great mathematician David Hilbert he said if you complete these you solve these problems then the field of mathematics will be complete and they were attempts to complete the field of mathematics and in that attempt gödel showed it cannot be completed the very nature of logic is that you cannot have completeness completeness only at this cost of consistency or consistency only at the cost of incompleteness I am speaking like somebody who knows it I don't know it at all so now what struck me when I when I was reading that is look at the terms relativity in concern relativity uncertainty incompleteness these are the very terms of Maya these are the very terms of fire I know I'm not making it a superficial observation because I know each of them is a very technical meaning but in general lots of look what it means for science and mathematics so at the in fact what has happened today is they say those who know physics and mathematics they they they say they know very much better than us so they say that there's a scandal at the heart of physics the two fundamental theories of physics general relativity and quantum mechanics which explain which is finally what physics is they're incompatible with each other the two theories which describe this universe one universe they mean different things so how it can be reconciled it has to be reconciled somehow they don't know we don't know yet mathematics at the heart of mathematics they said let there lies a monster which is gödel's incompleteness so this is what he wants to say the world ultimately if you consider it in itself it's a mystery for our purposes no problem because you are the reality let it appear it's fun to you and you can do whatever you want in it you can do business you can do science you can lead a family life it can be a monk you can do weather and all of that is possible within the world but the underlying reality is you yourself so he says here the verse said 34 now are not Mohave know what is the world it is not the self you the pure consciousness it's not that now none on item it is not a world of multiplicity apart from you that also does not exist now protect now protect injured so nah this world does not exist as one with you and the differences in this world he says even difference in this world cannot be proved it's an interesting observation I just say what he means to say and leave it at that it may sound crazy he says even in this world if you forget non-duality also even in this world which seems to be a world of multiplicity plurality difference literally the whole world is is construed on difference you are sitting on the chair clearly the chair is different and you are different that's why you can use sentence like I am sitting on the chair but adwaita attacks this you know at the waiter says chair and you are different so there are three things you have said you the person person is man is sitting on the chair man chair and man and chair are different man chair and difference the man is revealed by I can see the man I can see the chair but can you see the difference they seem to be different but it is different a form which can be seen tell me the color of the difference tell me the size of the difference tell me the form of the difference difference is not something that can be seen difference is not revealed by your sense organs Veda in Sanskrit Veda is not something that is revealed by pramana by sense organs it must be an object then what is it then well antha will say difference is not an object it's not it's not there at all but it seems to be their whole world is predicated on difference without difference no samsara is possible if you take difference out of it it will all resolve back into a mass of blankness which you experience in deep sleep only when you introduce difference then you have a world of colors and shapes and people I and this subject and object but Vedanta is the fundamental concept the lynchpin this the seed from which emerges the sprout of this universe that is difference in Sanskrit Veda but what is Veda you can see objects you can see object a and object B but the difference between object a and B you cannot see you might see what a crazy thing to say but the fact is you see if you follow it up you'll see it's true it's not an it's made of it it's not enough what Vedanta says is it's not an object of vision you can't see difference it's not an object of hearing smelling tasting touching because all you can see are colors and shapes and but the two things are different so is it an object of inference they say animal inference do you infer two things are different Vedanta sister that which cannot be experienced by direct perception can never be inferred how you say that there is fire on the hill the classic example in Indian philosophy there's fire on the hill because you see smoke but you can infer smoke from the fire the fire brigade goes out not on the hill here Manhattan will base its fire on the skyscraper why because it because of smoke and then the fire brigade goes rushing there but you can infer that because you have seen fire and smoke together at some point if you can never see them together there's no valid grounds for for inferring fire from seeing smoke similarly see two objects but the two objects are different how will you infer unless you have seen different somehow the unless you have made difference an object of your experience somehow so it is not different by protection but that means by perception it's not difference is not proved by anumana inference is difference proved by the by scripture Shruti No Shruti says there is no difference ut wants to there that is open issues want to establish advaitha non-duality no difference so T says Nahan on a stick in China there is no plurality here whatsoever so plurality or difference is not established by any source of knowledge or you can say you know the Jews have a word hood spa what we take for granted our whole life is predicated on that other waiter has a daring to make an attack on that very thing plurality the actually the attack is on the new I appeal a surfers nya school of philosophy in India is a pluralistic school they admit difference so there are lots of things so for example they will say things like it's a very common-sense approach they say difference means it is a relationship between things so man is sitting on a chair here is a man entity a here is a chair entity b and the relationship between them is that one is sitting on the other relationship is our Advaita attacks the conception of relationship also if you have relationship that means they're two entities you have to be related adviser says relation is not possible how advaitha asks so you have three things entity a entity B and the relationship between them they're like saying that the pain is on the book when is an entity book is an entity and the relationship between them is one is on the other that's the relationship now advice asks the question so a is real right yes B is real right yes is the relationship real or not yes it's also an entity a different kind of entity in that case if relationship is a is a real real entity and a is a real entity and our exists relationship exists between a and B then what is the relationship between a and our here what is the connection between them you have to say another relationship how is entity a related to entity our what's the connection because they are not same if they're same is a equal to the relationship no then this entity whatever it is there must be some relationship between two different entities so between a and R if you say r1 you know where this is going what is the relationship between a and R 1 and R 1 and R then you'll have multiple order relationships endless regression we had Turtles all the way down shape so advaitha says this is true of every relationship then you have to admit that relationship is not a real entity in that case there's no relationship between a and B so this thing falls apart so this is what he is saying will then end with this 134th verse is saying that so what is the nature of the world it is not identical with you the pure consciousness it is not independent of you the pure consciousness it is not part of you the pure consciousness hmm even within the world things are neither different from each other nor are they the same so is is the pen and the book the same no so are they related to different things related no can't be seems to be you said but it appears like that that Advaita agrees with yes it appears like that that's exactly what we are saying it's not real but it appears like that it's a movie it's a dream now protect now protect kinship none of these things are separate entities none of these things are virtually one identical mass either who knows this this is not the way we see the universe true not the way we ordinarily see the universe doctor we do we do who the ones who know the truth they know this about the universe yeah that's the way they saw it I guess if you look at the cutting-edge theories of modern science and mathematics they are also revealing something like this a very strange universe they're revealing a very very strange universe very different from our common sense universe yeah yes doesn't seem to be seems to be profoundly disturbing but the world we are trapped in is profoundly disturbing the world we are trapped in is profoundly disturbing somebody said somebody asked a question that will destroy our our ordinary life and it'll lead to depression and unhappiness it's ordinary life which leads to depression and unhappiness it sets you free from this remember nothing will disappear this world will continue exactly as it is in the waking you will see the world in the dream you'll see another world in deep sleep every night the world will disappear as it always has been appearing and disappearing only what is revealed to you is one non-dual truth which is underneath this world which is at the background which is you yourself in fact if you realize the truth of this if you have an insight into this basically you you're free immediately I was in Providence Rhode Island this Sunday after the talk which was about waking dreaming deep sleep and the fourth beyond that one gentleman he got up and people are coming forth and talking asking questions this person just walked past I get it there's nothing to do and he walked away he is right in a way but you must know that yeah and then keep on doing whatever has to be done there's absolutely no problem all right Oh Shanti Shanti Shanti hurry he owned that set Shri Krishna two announcements quickly one is that next Wednesday we have a very special class brahmacari ayan maraj he is a young monk from our University in in India he is coming he's written this book you will see on the way out there's a notice infinite paths to infinite reality and it's been released by Oxford University Press last month so he's coming he has been called to talk at Princeton University based on that book and he is very kindly agreed to give a talk here so next Wednesday 4 o'clock to 5:30 iron marge will give that get the class on Sri Ramakrishna's philosophy of began avail and he will give a talk on that but being the professor that he is he's already sent and a handout for every one of you so that will be circulated to you with today's class and he's given instructions a long handout but so you don't have to read the whole thing but the first five pages if you read that's enough that's a shortcut but you should at least those five pages you should read in case he starts asking questions so come next time four o'clock attend ion merges class it'll be very interesting yeah all right and second announcement Happy Thanksgiving