Video 39

40. Mandukya Upanishad | Chapter 3 Karika 17-19

oh but drunk are any fish in Aoyama diva huh drama she moksha peerage etre steerer Iran gosh two volumes Austin OBE via Shima diva hittin Yahoo swass Tina Indra British revoir swass Tina Lucia Vishwa Veda Faustina star show Irish taneema swass Tino brie hospital tato own shanti shanti shanti so in the Manduca carica be in the third chapter we were doing verse number 16 we were doing so what is going on here I think we had a gap of one class I was out in the Bahamas not on a cruise director there were classes in the c1 and the yoga ashram so I gave talks on a production of booty and I met some interesting people one was a mathematician Marcus de Deus a toy you've heard of Richard Dawkins so Marcus is his successor there's a post for the popularization of science it's a British government post in Oxford University Sir Richard Dawkins held that until recently he retired from that post and Marcus has taken it over but their approaches are different Richard Dawkins is well known as a militant atheist absolutely nothing to do it not only nothing to do with religion attacking religion all the time Marcus obviously has a different approach otherwise he wouldn't be sitting in the sea she won an ashram in the Bahamas but we got along well together and he was saying that he has taken approach of a more conciliatory approach that means we can learn something from different spiritual traditions and also at the same time have a dialogue with them and transmit a scientific attitude so so that's why he's there and hey the topic which is going to speak about his also interesting he is going to speak about what we cannot know what we cannot move from it's from entirely from a science perspective from a math and physics perspective we missed one class there so what was what is going on here in the third chapter it is called adwaita praça random that the chapter on non duality and here goroh pada approaches the claim that there is one non dual reality and he approaches it through reasoning and also through appropriate quotations from the scriptures the way he does it is interesting he says that Brahman the ultimate reality is neither a cause not an effect what that means is this the way religion is usually we look at it is there is something called God and which is the creator of the individual being in Sanskrit Jeeva that's us individual beings and jagat the world us and the world so God is the creator and God has created individual beings like us and the entire world so in philosophical language God is the cause and these are the effects if my effects I mean products something has been made something new God made the world God made us and this is exactly what God a father denies he says that see the jiva's us we are not actually products or we are not emerged from Brahma hundred ultimate reality we are rahman itself under ignorance under the spell of Maya we think we are separate but really we are one consciousness and this entire world is actually not a product something that has been made by God it is rather none other than God or Brahman the ultimate reality appearing in these forms so it's it's not a real new thing which is created just like the example it gives up a pot so from clay it's not a new thing which has been created called a pot it is the same clay alone which appears as the pot it is the same rope he gave the rope snake example it's the same rope allonge never it has not become a snake there is no second thing called a snake it's mistaken to be a snake so it's the rope is not a cause of something called a snake the clay is not really a cause of something called come up here and sit sit somewhere here if therefore God is not really a cause of the Jiva or the jagat these are not separate things then there is not there is no duality it's not really an effect so there is no duality it's not that this one and then there is to here rather this alone appears as this and this so so God is not there is not a second apart from God if these are not effects then can we call God God a cause if there are no real effects can we call the cause a cause it's not really a cause in that sense what it is what is it a cause up nothing real so it's not a cause it's neither cause nor effect this is one non dual reality without a second in terms of Manduca opposition let us try to understand it the paradigm which we are following here we experience the world in as the Waker and the wakers world if you're thinking what is that that's you and the world that you are experiencing and the experience it as the dreamer and the dream world of dreams dream world each of us individually we have our own experiences and we also have a deep sleep experience the deep sleeper and the blankness the potential world of the deep sleep from which has emerged these things so let's go what should we call it the potential world let us say the potential world so this is the world this is the G where the individual and though and this is not Vedanta this is not open assured this is what we experienced this is just repeating what we experienced every one of us what Vedanta sister telling us is dope Anisha tells us is that there is a fourth the Turia which literally means the fourth this alone appears as the Waker the dreamer and the deep sleeper it's not that the beta waker dreamer deep sleeper are three things produced from Turia it is the theory of this consciousness consciousness with a capital C which which is experienced as a Waker dreamer and deep sleeper when is the Waker available in the state of making when is the dreamer available when we dream when do you find out the deep sleeper in our deep sleep and it is the story alone is the story alone which appears as the wakers world as the dreamers world as the deep sleep world it is the Toria which is experienced as you the Waker and the world that you are experiencing really speaking you are none other than you the Waker are none other than Turia and this world which you are experiencing is an appearance and experience interior it has no separate reality in the classic vedantic statement brahma satyam jagat mithya Jeeva brahma havana parabrahman alone Israel the world is an appearance and you are none other than the absolute you are do you are brahman how do you probably put it here Turia septum Satyam this is the truth Korea and this world what is world according to man Dooku punishes wakers world dreamers world and deep sleep blankness this is an appearance mithya and you what are you in this you are the waker dreamer indeed sleeper in different states this waked dreamer deep sleeper is none other than thorium therefore the theory is is not an effect if it had really produced a world it would have been in effect the 2d is not an effect the turiya if it's not an effect it's not even a cause so in this chapter what he has been doing is God a father first of all he proved you remember the example of sky and pot which he used to prove that the waker dreamer deep sleeper the individual being the Jiva is not a separate new reality we are the absolute right now always there it just seems different and the world is now in that this section which is going on now is showing that the world also is an appearance in brahman it's not a separate reality out there so Brown are not Turia are pure consciousness or pure being whichever way you put it is neither cause not effect and hence non-dual where is samsara the world of problems here this this is samsara our some sort of what we call dei this we are in samsara waker in wakers world in dream also some star as their nightmare good dream bad dream there's also some sorrow deep sleep what do you think no yet seed farm seed for it will come back it's not there it's not experienced you don't experience any trouble in deep sleep but it's there it comes back when you wake up it comes back out-of-body experiences if you have an experience like that that would be in a waking state if you have an extraordinary experience you are awake and other people are awake right now if you get an out-of-body experience you feel you are floating up to the ceiling ceiling don't do that but if you were floating it would be in the waking state if you get a similar experience in your dreams it would be in the dream state notice out-of-body experiences coma Samadhi mystic experiences extraordinary states pathological States whatever if it's a state coming and going where will it be somewhere here and if you remember the original mantra of the seventh month of the Manduca they had in between states also wake a dreamer deep sleeper something in between so whatever you can talk about if it's a state a state means which comes and goes a state means where you are an experiencer you experience something so out of body experience noted not the example of the aboard is an experience so it must be an experience in consciousness can you have experience without consciousness no so again it points backs to Turia another example we used was gold and ornaments so you have maybe a bracelet or a necklace or a tiara and they are all made of gold and the reality of those ornaments is gold it is gold alone which appears as the bracelet necklace or tiara in and through them there is only gold there's nothing other than that okay so this is how he tries to establish non-duality remember hold on to the questions remember though the world and the individual experiencing the world they are said to be not ultimately real but they have a practical validity right now for example even if this is if this is true and if we become enlightened would this still continue yes what would continue named far and utility would continue you'd still appear the same it would still use the same descriptions and the same we use also would be their activity would be there what I mean by that is suppose suddenly you see in Tiffany's you see all the gold ornaments and you realize oh it's all gold after that after realizing this would that this realization prevent you from recognizing a necklace as a necklace would you suddenly say it was a necklace but now it's gold no you know it's gold and you also know if somebody says that's a necklace you know what what that person means would it prevent you from using the necklace properly that you know necklace is supposed to be put here but when you would you say that oh I know it know that it's all gold I can put the necklace here I can put the T around my neck here but you say that no you know the proper use you know the proper use and after enlightenment also so what do i what I mean by that is after enlightenment also you can be four perfectly functional in this world you'd be more functional you no longer be affected by the vicissitudes of samsara the ups and downs the fears and anxieties of samsara you would not be affected you would be safe from the shocks of samsara as somebody joked that before enlightenment you say what and after enlightenment so what so it was a nice I had I cannot take credit for it was Swami said it so enlightenment he says journey from what - so what shocks come in life what people behave badly with me our illness comes I have failure what and if you look at it from this point of view so what it's the same thing you are absolutely alright perfectly all right but practical use continues yes it is not an eternal spirit it is the eternal spirit d-1 yeah there's no individualization it is the ultimate reality it is what appears as individuals you know the terminology in Vedanta if you leave the Sanskrit out if you look at the English it's really very simple and it has the advantage of cleaving closely to our daily experience you don't have to learn weird new terminology like astral bodies or out-of-body experiences you just have to know what we all experience all the time that's all that's necessary who does not know the maker maker means you right now and the waking experience who does not dream who has not experienced deep sleep that's all that is necessary who does not even understand consciousness in since in a sense that you are feeling aware right now yes this absolute consciousness is the thing that we don t wants to teach and strength to educate us trying to point it out to us it's also there right now that's all that is necessary I can't think of a more simple terminology it's much easier instead of trying to match this to some other terminology it's best to accept or or understand this terminology and then evaluate other terminologies in this this way what the way I approach any philosophy is can I relate it to my personal experience is it relatable now some philosophies might say there are these extraordinary things you can't experience it now but it is possible for some great mistakes some if you go to certain plains of experience I will have to just what is called bracket it out and say that possible I'm not denying it but it's not within my experience and it's not within common experience it is treated as highly suspicious by any rational scientific mind but it's possible it's possible how can I say it's not possible there are extraordinary them you know extrasensory powers Patanjali yoga Sutra speaks about so many things certainly and in the lives of mystics we find so many account am I going to believe it is believed all of that no no no but I leave it as a possibility Vedanta says not important Vedanta is not important Vedanta says what you experience in this world is still some Sahara it's still the world itself whether it's religion whether it's science whatever it is it's still samsara wadn't is asking what is it that is experiencing it what are you a very simple push back turn it around what are you I am an astral body but astral body is it a thing which is it's a body right so it must be in samsara what experience is des Trull body ya know the experiences are important and just leave it there without the way Dante I asked a simple question to whom or what is this experience happening is it an experience you'll say yes have you seen it it's yes in that case not important what is important is the seer is you read anta will say I am NOT interested in your experiences but I am interested in you why am I not interested in experiences experiences come and go experiences individual you have it I don't have it they come and go we are good and bad they're limited but why I'm asking who is it that is experiencing it yes of course of course certainly because other than a do it away done everything else is what you are talking about the path of yoga a path of bhakti path of karma meditation all those practices they are dealing with experiences it a little bit but just just hold on to this hold on to this because in that in that case you know I also don't follow what I am saying so I also am I giving importance to experience so it's not wrong what you are doing but remember here we are studying adroit evident in this within this whenever you learn a thing in its own terms so when I the way I approach anything is I try to learn it in my own term in the terms in which it is taught when I go to a physics class for example I will not say oh you are talking about objects they are all appearances no that's not relevant if I want to learn cooking I will say if I say no no no it's neither cause not affect not a fire not the part not the rice is real no no no it's not relevant it's not relevant yeah very good but-but-but-but remember but remember well I'll give you one way of resolving the conflict one way the way I resolve it remember the Swami also meditates Swami also sings budgin Swami is also interested in meditation and experiences of meditation I am interested in all that also this not in this class then you see there a house how can you not how can you be the same person and have these two same this way this is the way I keep this as the foundation and that as the superstructure on that that's important that's very good you are in the world so you will experience the world and spiritual experience is the best part of experiencing the world right it is true from this point of view it's not important and that's good and that's good it's like what I'm saying is and what I'm saying is suppose you go to a movie hall and you are get to get very entangled with the movie I'll tell you it's not important let it go it's a movie did I tell you not to watch movies no enjoy all the movies you like be delighted with it but no it's a movie what is real is you similarly worldly experiences yogic experiences spirit experiences whatever you call them I cannot deny that they are dead would be foolish to deny they are there but Advaita is something you're here talking you're talking about the peak of the amount Everest from the ultimate point of view what is real is an absolute reality of which everything else is a manifestation in the world of manifestation in the world of movies enjoy the movie you can enjoy the movie only if you know the reality behind the movie otherwise your cut your conflict is your trying to live in two words the world of the movie and the real world at the same time if you make the difference then you will see it's not two words otherwise you end up being a schizophrenic this is one reality that's another really no there's one reality of which the other is an appearance but it's not a light problem we'll see Radha pada will bring it up here he will in fact bring up what is the relationship of these teachings with the dualistic religions he will talk about it now I've come to you there was another hand right right true true correct and that's exactly what God is going to say that's what God is going to say that but remember one thing again I will because it's a Manduca class I will say you are at the peak you are the peak you are actually not if we get the feeling that I'm trying to grasp something but theoretically at least take it that advaitha says you are the peak you are already there you just have to realize it yes and certainly all these practices are useful I have never said the practices not useful go repatha woodbox my ears if I ever say that he's going to say exactly right that right now they're all the practices are useful why not it's exactly what I'm saying if you realize all the ornaments are gold does it prevent you from putting the tiara on your head and then necklace on your neck and the bracelet on your wrist it doesn't prevent you but you know they are all the same reality that so that's what that's what it's it doesn't prevent that's the point I'm making there is a relative reality the really reality you're talking about the reality at the level of which we practice so many things worldly and religious the reality at the level of which we are theist atheist whatever it's there that's the relative reality that's what we Dante say that's all so then after enlightenment what will happen even after enlightenment the relative reality will continue to appear you will continue to see the differences and you will continue to be you have full use of everything except that you know now know that the background is one reality now supposing after enlightenment these differences still appear what to say that before enlightenment you must use these differences and acknowledge these differences even a dream if you're thirsty in a dream you may have a nice bottle of water next to your bed it will not help you in the dream only your dream water will help you in the dream in waking up you had a bottle of water in your dream wake up in the filters do you have to use the bottle next to your bed the way the water in the waking state so at each level whatever is appearing that is relatively real at that level and that relative reality becomes clear after enlightenment till that point one certainly must go on using whatever is given by the world morality religion science everything has validity [Music] [Music] certainly and remember certainly certainly after enlightenment also does the non dualist all these techniques know now their non dismiss masters who if they find the mind is a little disturbed we immediately use Patanjali yoga to calm the mind down if they find if they go to a wonderful temple where there is a presence of God in a very dualistic way they enjoy it fully we'll talk about it now then what is the difference between a dualist and non dwellest that also will become clear now so you are allowed to use all techniques you must what do you mean allowed do you not eat when you are hungry you can eat hold a job all practical uses there what what harm as religion doesn't know that also you are allowed to do and not only allowed those are extremely useful otherwise one does not come up to that yeah but then what is the uniqueness of order if all of this is exactly what it is in the dualistic world then what is special about non-dualism we will see even at this point suppose you say I am not yet enlightened I don't have that realization what will learning non-dualism do for me you'll see he was going to talk about it he's going to now going to compare non-dualism with dualistic religions let us go to verse number 17 so from 17 to I think 22 what is the topic going on that Brahman is tutorials non dual and these are all appearances and that's going on but from 17 to 22 what will happen is he will take a little diversion and talk about the dualistic religions from a non dual perspective on the dualistic religions the dualistic philosophies at that time but very relevant to what is what is happening here also right now 17 so Siddhanta be Oberstar su merced Dantas tasu do 18 oh nice cheated rhythm do 18 oh nice cheated rhythm Paras Paramveer Oh Dante Paras Paramveer Oh Dante tyre I am Nibiru deity I am Nibiru dirty the dualistic philosophies and religions worldviews have specific worldviews philosophies and they are fully setting them they are fully convinced and set in those and those have different world views and they conflict with each other but this non-dualistic worldview has no conflict with with any of the dualistic worldviews what is he saying the dualistic philosophies worldviews religion here he means philosophies dualistic world views of philosophies are different from each other not one thing there are many of those there cannot be many non dualisms it was very interesting that when you come to shankar advaita in Hinduism and nagarjuna's magnum occur buddhism which is non dual in certain sense they begin to sound extraordinarily similar so non-dualism tends to become the same we will note non-dualistic realizations of islamic mystics of christian mystics jewish kaballa abrino mystics and that dwight Avedon and the buddhists they all sound similar at least if you read unbiased we just read the accounts they sound almost literally the same when the sufi says that that i am one with allah when unalaq i'm one with with the lord i am the lord and that when the when somebody like meister eckhart says the ground of my soul and the ground of God are one and the same thing he's transcending individual and God when the taoist says that before the worlds were created there was one or one source which is still there right now so you see the same kind of language everywhere talk to amma see that thou art but in dualistic religions they are very different from each other and they're not only different they are in conflict with each other whereas this non dual approach has no conflict with the dualistic religions so what does it mean very simply not dualism sets up multiple levels of reality so ultimate reality is this pure consciousness there is a relatively a reality a lower degree of reality in sanskrit it is called varaha Rika transactional right now if you think what is that transactional reality the one which we are inhabiting right now right now we think this is the only reality but we're on to the Advaita Vedanta tells us there is a deeper or a higher reality which is Brahman the absolute and this is a lower reality viajar Rika what basically the non-tourist has done is is relegated all these religions to dvaraka at the level of the transaction in reality there is a God there is the world there you are and it's true it's true those things are true science is true religion is true in its own way and the different religions dualistic religions are basically talking about the same thing in different language truth is one to say just call it variously so this is what it has done let's go into little more detail the commentator here says by the way what does he mean by Duellists here who who is he talking about Shankar Acharya may explains Kapila Kannada Buddha or Hatari Dwight ena so you just mentioned Kapila is the founder of this aankia system kannada is the founder of the white shaker system these are ancient schools of hindu philosophy they are all dualistic then the Buddhist systems he says they are also dualistic I mean it's not entirely true there are Buddhist schools which are non-dualistic and the giantess system are that means the janus system etc he says but today it would mean just about every dualistic religion the various Vaishnava schools the Shiva schools the sharp the schools within Hinduism the various schools of very various denominations of Christianity Islam Judaism all the religions of the basically the theistic religions of the world they are dualistic non-theistic once also like janus and they're also dualistic so this is it applies what he's saying so two points here one is their view of the world the world views differ so gorup are the addition the company commentator Shankar Acharya says they all are affected by this different effect of raga Drescher likes and dislikes so I have a worldview it's born from my culture my religion my tradition and I like this and I consider everything else to be lower or false or I've converted into this if I've converted into this I bought into it because I think it's real it's good and therefore everything else is less or inferior raga it's inevitable something like God excites the highest and the worst passions so which can exalt you to great worship and love and devotion can also generate hatred for others so this dualistic religions have this problem I consider that my way of thinking whether Vishnu or Allah my traditions this is correct this is right the others are either false or they are inferior the ways that they were treated was the newer religions newer by newer I mean religions like Christianity or Islam or in the Indian context Buddhism or later on other religions they convert it is natural because if you are a new religion and there's already an older religion where will you get your followers until you come unless you convert so these religions are always converting religions whether it's Islam or Christianity or Buddhism for example converting religions a Sikhism for example so they accept converts from others and so it becomes a great thing to convert our PPP other people to my way of thought it's not that the older religions that are exempt or free of being bigoted or prejudiced against others the older religions have a different kind of bigotry like you are excluded so Hinduism Judaism for example they they are the older religion zoroastrianism notice they have said certain things similar for example is or history and the parsy's in India the Zoroastrians and in the Jewish families in more Orthodox ones if you marry a non-jewish person or non Jew restrained person then immediately your family becomes non Zoroastrian or non Jewish so the older religions were like that they didn't they did not convert and they excluded they tended to exclude but that's also kind of narrowness exclusion one kind of fanaticism is I am right you are wrong and you better come and join me otherwise I'm going to cut off your head that's a kind of a nasty paratus ism you see it's in some of the missionary religions the other kind of narrowness you find in say old Hinduism for example I am right or superior you are not wrong but you are far inferior don't touch me stay away from me you're going to pollute me to do so there was a kind of exclusionary kind of thing so there are this narrowness in both cases the saving grace compared to say Islam or Christianity in Hinduism is that the when the swami vivekananda put it he said in this country that when you become fanatical you tend to torture others even the hindu becomes fanatically taught tortures himself sam harris he makes a point that it is not true that all fundamentalisms are bad then he point points out there is a religion in India called Jainism whose fun central teaching is non-violence so he says the more fanatical a giant becomes the more safe you are unchristian the less likely he's go here she is going to indulge in any kind of violence so it's it's what you are fundamental what you are fundamentalist about that is dangerous so it's so yes so here is the problem of of dualistic religions per aspera marouk G&T they come in they clash with each other it could be in the form of here is the right path bring everybody one and all to this path if you resist so much the worse for you and when I when I kill you for bringing you to my path I'm doing you good because I would saved you from a horrible hell of going in the wrong path and so at least have killed you so that that done your service so this kind it leads to stray to enormous violence and it has done done so when I feel I am right for something as important as religion it's sort of enables a person a sort of sort of permits violence and many wars in history until the modern time most many words not all but many words were fought for religion and think about it how strange all the religions without exception preach goodness morality and they all have some version of the Golden Rule the Golden Rule which is there in the United Nations you know to treat others as you would have them treat you they all have it and they're all good they're all meant for uplifting humanity but how is it that religion became an instrument of war or an instrument of terror an instrument of oppression subjugation one reason is politics of course it gets tied with politics so Godfather says non duelist approaching safe from that it's a claim he makes I hold on to the question why it's very difficult to imagine blowing up people in the name of the non dual Brahman that is ridiculous why would you do that it's literally the one you're blowing up and what and you the one who is being blown up you're one and the same it does not matter what a what philosophy they hold on to any kind of dualistic philosophy that they hold on to is perfectly all right with an entre list it does not clash with the novelist which which gold well crash ornament clashes with gold a sink same gold can either be a tiara or it can be a necklace so near necklace and tiara clash because they are 1 cannot be both but gold can be both if when it is a tiara it's perfectly alright being a tiara of an iterable necklace it's perfectly alright being a necklace it is no conflict with either because it's talking about it for a more fundamental level of reality can a non duelist be a fanatic in one sense not in the sense of converting people or being violent or fighting words somebody said another interesting thing in the not in in the impersonal politics is not possible a brahmacari long ago in a training centre in the monastery we are discussing this he said politics is personal in the impersonal there is no politics so very difficult to do politics in science very difficult to have Hindu science and Buddhist science and Christian Science no it's impersonal truth how can you have mathematics of a nation or a religion you can't it's an impersonal truth you can't do politics with it similarly this Advaita Vedanta is an impersonal reality but the beauty of it is it does not deny the person it really gets the person to transactional reality here so all persons we are all permitted goal does not deny ornaments in fact gold enables the ornaments to exist and shine similarly this Brahman alone enables all of us to be here and to shine to express ourselves it alone appears as the world so it has no conflict with the world or with individual beings and no conflict with our various philosophies this is all these philosophies and religions they fight with each other Paras Paramveer Chianti inevitably so because they are making different claims about the same thing but we have no conflict with any of them now is it possible I will come to a question is it possible for a non duelist to be fanatical in a different sense not in a political sense not in a violent sense but in a sense of being dismissive and contemptuous so for example totapuri the moment you begin to like and understand non-dualism immediately you feel you have been elevated to an elite that's a dangerous feeling so totapuri see Ramakrishna's guru innovative Adana how does he react when sri ramakrishna claps and takes the name of God ceramic Rishon had the habit at the sunset around this time as he had a way of thing and we know if you cannot count the individual hairs in your hand it's so dark it's time to clap and take the name of God so like a child he would sit and Rama Rama Hare Hare Krishna Krishna and Kali Kali like that he would do total food he was talking I'm sure about man Dookie or something like that if you start doing that I would be a gas to totapuri stares at him and says whatever are you doing and he says the chapati Benari are you making chapati in the villages of north india and the evening the ladies will sit like that and in front of the fire and take the that flat dough and do this on the fire and bake the bread the chapati one dutch Swami in India he had given a name for the chapati would call them UFOs unidentified flat objects there is a standard food dish in our ration he would call them UFOs are you are you baking chapati because the women do this way so you're singing the name of Goddess and he sees a Sri Ramakrishna is you know he is taken aback I am taking the name of God and you're saying I'm baking to the chapatis look at this that's contempt when Sri Ramakrishna says I will go and ask my mother to the positions you want to learn non-dualism I see you're fit for non-dualism you want to learn it he says I have to ask my mother because he would ask the divine mother for everything in the temple in Kali and totally thought he meant his own mother and he races off to the temple and comes back and says mother says that you have been sent to teach me that so I learned from you but told oh but he didn't like it one bit until he learnt different but this is the problem with non-dualism so that kind of analysis might be there of scientist I'll come to you a scientist once told me he felt very hurt he went to a great teacher of non-dualism in modern India who has passed away recently it was a really a great master of non-dualism and the scientist you're so shocked he came and told me that I went and told the Swami that that I am a physicist in this one we sit physics Oh science that's all Maya let it go he's not being fanatical he can absolutely logically demonstrate that he's absolutely right and in a sense he is right but it's not a helpful way of reacting if you dismiss all that what's the poor science is going to do consider everybody have to become a non dualist monk in the living in the Himalayas no and this not what Krishna taught or the Upanishads teach that's not yet so that's a way of dealing with it it can happen like that he won't satisfy both as a non duelist I have a place for the scientist and for the atheist and at least whether they these tendencies will accept my position that little different they will not the problem with the theist is non-dualism is terrifying for the theist the non duelist has a place for the th it will come in the next verse that we have a place for the dualist but the dualist is no place for us i can accommodate guard is an appearance in this world you can accommodate God in the non-dual extreme work at the level of viajar EK reality but what will at least remaining at least if he becomes a non duelist well and good then you say you sign him up for the Manduca class but remaining at least I believe only in my Eva or my Krishna or my Christ and nothing else the rest is all superstition or whatever or is bad now how will non-dualism impact this person he cannot absorb it I can put him here but where will he put me he has to say the dualist committed dualist the narrow dualist has to say non-dualism is false has to say non-dualism is dangerous and harmful and that's exactly what they do the ancient there are schools of Vaishnavism in hinduism who are deeply against non-dualism they I think they call as Maya bodies so they they hate each other the dual schools but they are dual schools when you ask him or non-dualism you like we are the worst of the worst we are far worse than the other duelists because something can be made of them but we are absolutely so dick Maya wad is that the teacher of the doctrine of Maya of illusion and for example in the gaudiya vaishnava tradition there are two schools of Maya vada which are hated most one is us and the other one has the Buddhists they can't absorb it it's impossible and it's devastating from for their worldview I'll say I mean a committed it's gone hurry Krishna follower and a Christian evangelist can go at it they almost are like mirror images I had arguments with both types and I found that if you replace Krishna with Christ their arguments are more or less the same they're like mirror images but what they can't handle is this kind of an approach yeah so that's the thing yes what is the reaction of that person is it is it just in appearance and doesn't matter at the end at all so I'm just gonna watch her that yes true or does the person say I'm now in the world so I have to world of time and cause and effect correct both are true notice it does not matter in the end it's perfectly alright I am going to watch it which is it is true from which point of view this point of view and this is the fundamental point of view of an enlightened person so that person knows but that person also has a body and a life at a limited existence in this world and so the person would try his or her best to overcome suffering I mean such persons usually have a tremendous sympathy for everybody notice the lives of these persons whether it's ramana mahshi living in a cave or the Buddha teaching till the age of 80 in the dusty not plains of North India 2500 years ago or the great masters Rama Krishna or Christ helping people to the last breath of their lives now they have two things one is sri ramakrishna afflicted by cancer till almost the last day of his life he's helping people giving initiation giving teaching anybody who comes he feels are people coming let me then let them come I will tell them about God and help them in their life take them out of suffering so at that level he's giving up his life literally for the welfare of others that's what a person who feels the oneness of existence will do so many people are suffering if this one body is to be exhausted in the service of others we've a kinda says I would give a thousand lives if I can you can lift even a dog out of its misery so that kind of tremendous sympathy has how because from that point of view this person sees everybody has one not as a dream I am in all these beings who suffering and I feel very keenly disappearing of others at the same time from this point of view as far as he is concerned he knows it's perfectly alright is nothing I know nothing wrong even in the body is dying of cancer or put on a cross and bleeding to death the spirit is undisturbed they know that the reality is completely undisturbed yeah so this is the attitude and you can actually check this when Sri Ramakrishna says that I'm suffering from cancer is he not suffering is he playing is he saying it's a dream no no no he feels the same pain that a cancer patient would feel I can't eat I'm weak it hurts and then when hurry Maharaja Hari tells him that but I see that you're in great bliss a cancer patient it's cruel to say to a cancer patient he bursts out laughing and says oh the rascal has found me about how found out what that this is not touched by the cancer here you the watcher of the movie are not touched by the patient dying of cancer so tragically on screen you will just see that and say Bravo not for others for in your own case so yes let me go ahead a little philosophical angle on this why do the dualist conflict with each other they are bound to be in conflict with each other and why the non duelist has no conflict this is how we experience the world I mentioned it yesterday in the gospel class do you remember the noir in Sanskrit pramatta knowledge or source of knowledge in sanskrit brahmana and knowable the universe in sanskrit premier knower source of knowledge and things to be known very simple here is a pen it's a knowable you are a knower and you've got eyes eyes are the source of knowledge for you you the knower using your eyes you see the object the knowable this is the knowable premier you are the knower pramatta and the instrument of knowledge you deploy to know this is called brahmana okay and these sources of knowledge are many there are many promoters many sources of knowledge and many nobles it's basically a description but you might call an epistemological description of the universe we are in right now now the problem is because the sources of knowledge are many depending on what you use you will see the world differently a person you are seeing the world you have a particular vision of the world suppose you don't come come come sit sit if you can come sit here suppose somebody only hears has the sense of sound not not vision the way you will describe the world and the way that person will describe the wood will be very different that person describes the world as sensations and sounds and you describe the world as colors and shapes and you will conflict because your way of looking at the reality and his way of looking at the reality both based on sources of knowledge yet they differ radically so that's all right we understand that but what about religion now depending on what you consider to be a source of knowledge about God and the world and the meaning of life whether it is the Bible or the Quran or the Torah or the Gita of the Vedas you will tend to look at it through that and your world view of what is real what is the what is God is God with form or the farm is got male or female or with the beyond gender is got one with you or different from you is there God at all it all depends upon your source of knowledge what you have accepted as reliable source of knowledge okay with me so far so these people they will differ from each other and they are bound to clash they're bound to differ and from differing they're very clashes but then how does non duality get beyond this what non-duality says is these three technically these three are called within pootie three put is over three pootie means the triple what shall I say the triple points of epistemology epistemological let us say low sigh or epistemological basis epistemology means the knowledge the study of how we get knowledge what Vedanta says all three are appearing in one consciousness ultimately neither the no are not these pramana not be knowable are ultimately real they are all appearances in one reality which you are so all of these are acceptable why first because they are not the ultimate reality second they are all coming from you that that one reality and all of these other people whatever they say they are actually this one it's not that the non-dualistic own is advaitha visible base by is brahman everybody whether they agree to not dwell is about not whether they are teased atheist dwellest non duly scientist sceptics whatever they're from the non-dual point of view you are all as much brahman as I am or Sri Ramakrishna is or anybody it is absolutely the same reality because from this point of view all of these are acceptable there is no conflict if anyone will do and what we just discussed earlier they are all beneficial all the different moral and spiritual practices they're good for somebody somewhere they are all meant to elevate persons advaitha will regard them as steps or preparations for the highest knowledge so they are good if somebody does not want the dualistic religions of the world can and but a feast can also come down to it the atheist who is an atheist it is somewhat like a Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens deploying the sources of knowledge called science comes to the conclusion there cannot be anything called God fine that's also alright and yet that does not prevent that person from understanding non-dualism if he wants to so all these practices are good now moving on today I had an interesting experience had gone to an interfaith conference organized in Greenwich High School 600 kids at all grade 9 10 11 12 you know what is it called freshman sophomore junior and senior yeah so the the so about 600 650 kids were there for one hour long program there was a pastor and a rabbi and a Swami it sounds like a joke the pastor and and a Muslim representative from the UN it was a Muslim preacher so they were that makes how many four or five of us four of us and the guy at that entrance the security guy the introducer he was humorous he said so Swami are you with the pastor and the rabbi or are you one with yourself you got it right are you one with yourself and they ask interesting questions one student asked if somebody laughs at my religion what do I do things questions like that where does all this come from it comes from these clashes between dualistic religions verse number 18 so how does Advaita avoid all this and why is Dwight a bound to be caught in this problem how why does non-dualism avoid these problems and dualism bound to be caught up in these problems uh Dwight impera motto he uh Dwight Ampera motto he do item turbidity do item today though jetty the Shamu Beata tweet impatient Abraha datum they know um Nibiru 30 day no no be routine so it says non-dualism is the absolute reality and dualism is a manifestation of then all not dwell philosopher least philosophies and manifestations of the non dual reality so the earliest philosophies are all at the transactional plane at the relative plane this difference applies in non-dualism alone but for dualism he says temptation Oviatt our datum here's an interesting distinction the distinction between a higher truth and a lower truth the absolute and the relative this distinction does not apply in dualistic religions if you ask a vaishnava or a shaver or a Muslim or a Christian or odd or the Jew what is the absolute reality according to you and what is the relative reality there is no absolute reality is one reality only they collapse the two what happens is so for the dualist this world is also dualistic and liberation ultimately what they whatever liberation is that's also dualistic so here I am in this world a suffering person if I am a Hindu I say I'm caught in karma my own Karma being born condemned to being born again and again if I'm a Christian I say I'm condemned by my own original sin and I'm trapped in this dualistic world of other words it is a dualistic world there is a God and there is you the sufferer individual and there is the world now what would be freedom from this what would be my desired state what does my religion promise me the Christian heaven of the Islamic heaven or device now in Hinduism there multiple conceptions of heaven you know kailasha or why Kunta or goloka whatever you call it now I can say from the dualistic point of view they talk about going there being free of the suffering of this world may be a Christian would say that my original sin is redeemed I am restored to my pristine perfection as Adam was or Eve was in the garden of paradise and I live in the presence of God a holy blissful existence I am there other blessed souls are there God is there that's a pretty good description of a Christian heaven autumn or an Islamic heaven and similarly in Hinduism also the dualistic schools they talk about multiple kinds of liberation but all of them are dualistic what are the kinds of liberation they talk about they talk about salokya samipya sayujya sarupya salokya means you live in the same realm as God not near God not in the same neighborhood that's a pricey neighborhood but you sort of live in a satellite Lee lower lower end part of the town but it's still heaven SAR local means the same world or the same realm as God even Buddhism has these conceptions Buddhism talks about the pure lands and each Buddha creates a Pure Land it's a lot like you know we talk about Ramakrishna and Ramakrishna Lokar things like that that's all okay you go there you stay there and that's also freedom you are free of suffering in the world then there is Sammy Pia you get to stay near God so the god you worship so that's the much better state you get to hang around with the with the big guy himself is usually himself unless it's daily loca in Hinduism where it is she and all the where all the cool people hang out so that means cool people here would be spiritual people so that is Sammy nearness sarupya you tend to become more godlike the farm your your actual each of us as a divine body and so that changes to become more godlike and sigh you do you attain to oneness with God it's not a non-dual oneness you tend to lose your existence and you remain as this creator of the universe you feel one with it and it I try to remain like that so there are different kinds of liberation but they are all dualistic they're also dualism this difference persists you are different from other liberated souls and there are there's a samsara where there are lot of people who are not liberated there are places or like elsewhere people are suffering in fact there's a description of in a medieval Christian text of how the joys of heaven if you are a good person and you go to heaven one of the joys you won't believe it one of the joys is looking down from heaven into hell and seeing how those fellows are suffering it's how about a great joy that is the suffering of see I believed in God and I am saved this fellow did not believe in God look how he's suffering Wow thank God so these are all dualistic conceptions it's there in every dualistic religion dualism the point is it's there in the world and after world whatever thing you can conceive of that's also a dualistic conception whereas in non-dualism all these are appearances and that's the central truth you are that non dual reality right now and it's perfectly all right right now because they cannot overcome the ultimate duality also even in moksha even in freedom so they conflict with each other they cannot absorb advaitha they kind of but advisor can absorb that because it full play of dualities is acceptable here but non duality ultimately of course the Advaita has its own has his own thing he did oh he insists on the full ultimate realization is the non-dual realization see very interesting hold on to the question there was a debate between duelists and a non duelist in India there have been many many but a recent one and I read the account written by the non duelist he claims victory but he claims did nobody declared him the victor what happened was his name was Kashi calendar Giri he was a great non duelist teacher originally from Kerala but he settled down in Mumbai so he was challenged by a duelist and the debate was held in Bangalore and the first half event well the scholars were debating with each other and they had a particular text from the Gita and non duelist interpretation and a dualist interpretation and they were doing and going at it now the supporters were sitting on two sides and rows of chess they began to get more and more heated supporters who get heated and by the time the second session started the supporters started hurling chairs at each other and the whole debate ended in chaos anyhow the non-dollars went back and wrote a book about how he won the debate but there a very interesting point in non duelist makes he says you are talking about Krishna the avatar and going to wake under the heaven after death devotion to God as Krishna and so and so forth at no point do i contradict you i give you a blank check whatever you say is true from an honest perspective then that dwellest says no no no you're saying all of this is an appearance and there's a deeper reality called brahman that's what you're saying that's what I object to then the non-dualistic puts an interesting question this deeper reality what we are talking about that's our business you have nothing to say about it because you don't acknowledge any deeper reality so the reality which you are acknowledging we acknowledge that - from a different perspective we may call it an appearance but at your level at the transactional level exactly what you say but devotion to Krishna you can go to heaven and spend an eternity with with Krishna over the beautiful conception I am one with it I I sign off on it that flummox the dualist because this is something both the dualist and the non-tourist has something to say this is something the dwellest has nothing to say about is not there in the conceptual map of dualism so why would you have an objection it's one way of putting it yes ah rupiah sarupya means you and retain your individuality you become more godlike you begin to look like Krishna whatever and not stage there are different kinds and the other one would be you become one with the person of Krishna it's still a personal God this is moksha this is moksha according to the dualist yeah there's no duality between you and Krishna you become one with Krishna but this duality between Krishna and all others and the world exists and the sinners and saints exist everything is going on and you become one with the personality of Krishna Krishna is not an impersonal existence consciousness bliss is the personal God yeah yes don't you see that's the problem with non-dualistic yeah I know how many people are those who begin to appreciate non-dualism they immediately come up upon this if this is true why at all stay with dualism you might say and it's true but the thing is in a in India it was never the custom of condemning the earlier stages if you go on to something new all of this was useful to me and is useful to many how many people will appreciate this how many of the people have the intellectual caliber the also certain spiritual maturity is required person who holds on to the reality of the world strongly with both arms will find this unacceptable it's only after this way I often say Vedanta is often a finishing school in California we had this a number of examples who came to be learnt in the 60s and 70s then drifted away cool that cool desist California's has many choices huge supermarket and then 20 years later they come back to Vietnam taking one went out to a very good school of Buddhism and went out the left there and then he came back there why he said Buddhism is fine I mean it gives me everything that i dontoh gives me except guard I miss the old curmudgeon I miss the old curmudgeon alcohol okay that's a good good segue from here so we understand go to about this point of view you will I'll make it more clear what Shankara says go to by this point of view but do you think it's very acceptable to be put at oh you are all right you are at the level of appearance it's a movie you are okay at the level of a movie the reality is what I am Telling You you are all all right but it's fiction at that level if you are you are fine who would agree to that it's it's condescending at the head the least okay so what and in contrast to this what Sri Ramakrishna says that we will come to I wanted to make a note about what Sri Ramakrishna says what is the non dualist version of harmony what is the non dualist version of arm because non wrist is claiming we have no conflict no the root Deonte we have no conflict we T ism eighty ISM all the religions of the world all the philosophies about the world science we have no conflict but what is the nature of this non conflict notice Shankar Acharya explains he and in his note to this verse from a verse number 18 what was the verse number 18 the ultimate reality absolute reality is non duality and dualism is just a manifestation of that non duality they for the dualist this world and the next all levels of reality are dualism there is nothing else other than dualism but we have no conflict with them then I am Nibiru deity this one does not have any conflict with them how no conflict Shankar Acharya explains he says imagine a person sitting on an elephant going through getting many of these elephant story sitting they going through a street and a madman stands in the street and says come on charge your elephant against mine well hell let's have an elephant fight just as this person on the elephant doesn't do anything about it just walks past with what we'll have do you have an elephant fight the madman doesn't have an elephant therefore the non-dual philosopher has no conflict with any hobby dualists because this is the elephant there's no elephants they don't have elephants what do you what are you going to fight with it's like saying a snake or a rope the classic example a rope somebody sees it as a snake mistake somebody sees it as a piece of a computer cable maybe in a modern example somebody sees it as a trickle of water on the ground remember it's all in semi-darkness so what are the three options snake cable trickle of water suppose three three options now with each other they have conflicts a cable cannot be a snake a snake cannot be a trickle of water they are all different and they'll fight no no it's a it's a trickle of water no no be careful it's a snake no it's just a computer cable somebody threw out from their office they are fighting with each other the Rope has no conflict with any of them it's because of the rope the three things are perceived or misperceived they fight with each other the reality of all of them is the rope so this is the way they put it so let me just yeah I'll come to you and that is all right from a non dualist perspective but from a dualist perspective it's it's insulting it's plain inserting so in sanskrit but I left readouts shankara's original Sanskrit yes ah Mitaka jihad on madam boom ishtam okay Yamaha rode up one who is on top of a raging elephant so what is the raging elephant it's the raging elephant of non-dualism Unnithan boom Ishtam on the ground a crazy crazy person standing there Radhika Gerudo I am gong vara Amati I am on my own elephant charge your elephant against mine let's have a good elephant fight that man shouts then what does the wine on the non-dual elephant - but the et brahmana mappy even being challenged like this thumb protein a variety of ero the Buddha thought what he does not charge his elephant against that why because he sees no conflict there if there was another elephant he could have had a fight but this is none and therefore he just passes by so in this way Tata ha para Martha Tabram Javed at Maeva Vietnam beautiful thing he says Rama V da mark Maya from the non delicious points of the point of view all the duelists whatever their philosophy whatever their real religion they're all my own self they're not my brothers they are not my countrymen or they are not my fellow click we see the brotherhood or sisterhood of humanity we are all children of God not even that they literally I myself that discloses this most direct oneness you can't get in any other point of view there even the Brotherhood of humanity or whatever we talk about United Nations that's still pretty rhetorical it's an ideal thing Advaita Vedanta claims not just ideal it is the reality we are all one reality all duelists of whatever persuasion they are the very self of the non-dual Stern and Allah says you all who are my own very self ok right the question you had two questions who come here for you first now that that that thinking disturbs me a lot because what if there is some it's logically impossible how can you go beyond non-duality how can you go how can you go be it's logically possible you can't argue against logic that against dualism you can have more oneness oneness is possible if Tunis is possible oneness is also possible but beyond oneness what will you say it's it's actually a certain fact nobody says anything even science for example I was at this philosophy cafe on Monday so we're discussing and they said that in science and in philosophy separation dualism is taken as a defect that you always try to find and uniting principle always so it a science comes to an end when you have found the one explanation for everything here it's not just every material phenomena it is the one explanation for the entirety of existence beyond that what can you say not only that this is regarded as an infinite reality beyond language now beyond language and infinite you can't have more than one of those when you say beyond language and infinite how can you distinguish to infinite which are beyond length it would be the same thing so and that one is expressed as so many dualisms this is exactly the meaning of what you see there truth is one the sages call it variously yes damn we are going to come to that don't jump jump ahead he's stealing my thunder our Sri Ramakrishna standard ok quickly anybody else had objections I'll come to you and they're able to prove the consciousness has a physical basis yeah yeah how would that affect our very seriously I would say to the conflict right city I think so in principle no but my point is it's good that you asked I always sometimes ask myself this is a really serious question that we are asking for the first time that scientists are asking and the hard problem is that how can a brain a physical entity generate a first person experience like the conscious experience they seem to be so different from each other and so David Chalmers analysis saying it cannot so we must think of consciousness in other terms but the materialists so in the philosophy cafe that they the philosopher oh there was a messy mo from CUNY he's a biologist so he is firmly convinced that consciousness is nothing more than a biological phenomenon you find it in biological tissue living brain tissue and therefore in brains not even tissue in actual brains therefore it must be a product of a brain of of a brain and nervous system only thing is I can't he says or any all the scientist agree we can't show how it is happening even begin to show how it's happening but his point of view is give us time we will be able to show that's called promissory materialism I will show give me time no but that's true and he gives very good examples we had a I had a back and forth with him on Monday interesting though I let me just remark is consciousness a fundamental property of the universe that was the topic can you imagine how many people turned up more than a hundred historians neuroscientist AI people there was this guy this sitting stand in the same Rovere Evers he's got degrees from MIT and Stanford and he develops a AI machines people like that and members of the public and philosophers from CUNY Columbia more than a hundred people they're interested in this you see how much interest there is in this this a hot topic now so we had a background port with him with Massimo this is the point it's a very important point he says we'll be able to explain how at one time in the 19th century 18th century many leading thinkers thought life is something that is a mysterious thing Ilan right avatar love Ellen vital of Berg saw and many others thought of it and something that science cannot explain and he says today we have a very good understanding of life down to the molecular level it's a pretty satisfactory we can't say but a completely explained but pretty good explanation so like that consciousness also will be inevitably explained what is your objection to that from Advaita perspective you can see it's a very big objection you can immediately see the objection I don't think they can see the objection scientist but there is an objection what is the objection when you said life I told him that look from this point of view from a first-person point of view we can all appreciate it for you life is an object something to be studied here it's an object breathing all the physiological functions you have explained a complex objective process in terms of more fundamental objective processes objects in terms of other objects which is exactly what science does but for the first time you have come to something which is the subject is the pure subject it's not a thing out there do it all thing all are things now you're trying to say you'll be able to explain the subject in terms of objects brain and nervous system and objects you're saying that the brain and nervous system is generate a subject from an Advaitic point of view that's what's called a category mistake in philosophy it's called a category mistake this category mistake is obvious to the non-dualistic waiter point of view it's not obvious to scientists why it's not obvious to scientists for a scientist everything is an object I saw something ridiculous I didn't point it out the discussion was fierce do octopuses have count consciousness if I replicate is consciousness a pattern in the brain so suppose I make a brain exactly like this for living brain but I make it out of cardboard will it be conscious if you another since ed works in systems here is something if you set up a complex chain of sensors now it gathers information like we do would you call it conscious what about brain dead people or what about brain damaged people variety of things is this conscious is that conscious is this conscientious here is it there AI of course the big question you know you know what was ridiculous and shocking to me why are you looking for consciousness in a second thing it's directly available to you in you yourself but you know the the very inertia of science is to find an object and study its properties so I'll find an object and study its property called consciousness directly are you not conscious you can't study a quark or a liver like that because it's an object you have to study the object itself but consciousness is what you are in your consciousness you are doing science in your consciousness you are doing we're on tour religion tizi myth ism whatever it's all in consciousness consciousness is ever available to everybody all of us are conscious and you the scientist studying kinda hard problem of consciousness you have direct access to consciousness within yourself in fact if you pursue it further see the logical problem the when you're looking at an octopus or a machine or a brain-damaged person can you study consciousness there you are making again the same error in principle you have got direct access to consciousness in your consciousness when you are conscious that is the not only that adroit will point out something startling you have no access to consciousness anywhere else what you will but what you see the problem is they made up their mind the reality is body and living tissue and cells and somehow it's producing consciousness now I will argue on that base then you already assume the solution an octopus a brain-damaged person a completely healthy person in nowhere nowhere will you have access to consciousness challenge that if you have understood what I am saying you will see that immediately it's impossible the moment you say an octopus or a brain also it's an object you don't I'm saying you don't even understand covert consciousnesses you don't know what you are talking about I see the discussion they cruise very easily from consciousness to mind to neurons and back and forth again without completely fuzzy discussion and that's not their fault that's the level at which consciousness studies is right now this distinction even the appreciation of what consciousness is you know the beauty of Advaita is the more you begin to understand this - you are going towards enlightenment equally fast all you have to this understanding deepens into enlightenment that's all yes there was a lot of debate I have to think about it but many things they used for example one is coming to me right now if consciousness is a property of matter the ancient charvak has materialist said that this is what they are talking about now in ancient India one one of the objections was very interesting one which I came across recently if matter has consciousness and matter produces consciousness so the body produces consciousness the ancient material is said that and modern scientist also saying it in that case bodies made of matter how much matter lots millions of cells billions of atoms why do you have one consciousness then why does in every part body tall fat in Indian Chinese white black animal dogs and cats everywhere why is it one consciousness it should you could you could think we went I argue that I know what a biologist would argue that it makes evolutionary sense if then one bodies are multiple consciousness is and it would not such a thing would not survive how do you know evolution works by chance and natural selection you would have at least come across few animals which would have multiple consciousnesses and which did not survive maybe how do you know multiple consciousnesses may not be better than one consciousness if you are multiple advisors in your head but the this is the question under do you see the doubt if matter is producing consciousness you have a lot of matter in the body why only one consciousness is produced by a matter is a business see this is a very subtle argument and a powerful one even till today modern evolutionary biologists won't be able to give an answer yes to think about it develop it yeah consciousness in advaitha is experience directly right now it's what we are experiencing in fact if you can sharpen the idea of what consciousness is it's always available to us all these things become very clear what is consciousness and what is not consciousness very simple if you ask in consciousness studies give a definition of consciousness there either fail or give you multiple definitions each more complicated than the last I can give you a straightforward definition all of us would agree with right now will I give you the definition in advaitha the definition of consciousness is that which is aware of objects whatever you are aware of or you can become aware of is not consciousness it's an object to consciousness now think the world it's an object to you body it's an object to you even mind you see by this knife by using this definition as a knife you can clearly see the difference between consciousness and mind I'm appointed it out of the discussion in modern consciousness studies this distinction is blurred sometimes they are talking about thoughts emotions perceptions sometimes they are talking about consciousness but the two are different what's the difference between experience and consciousness how elegantly they have defined this what is experience consciousness plus an object is experience think about again apply to your own experience then do you have an experience you are awareness and an object comes in front of you it could be a sight smell touch it could be a thought a memory and idea desire then you have an experience these definitions are directly based they're called phenomenological directly based on our that they can be if you understand these experiences your own experience of life will justify these experience these definitions you see what these definitions mean look at your own life your life will justify these definitions am I making any headway in the scientific community on her I'm making some headway here I hope no not in the scientific er I'll come to you not in scientific community the professor Edwin Bryant was here I asked him the same question that the sankeien point of view you don't have to go to our do it other way it is it's too much too radical but the sanction point of view which is very close to David Chalmers plan psychism the sanction point of view so we have certain things to contribute to the modern debate on consciousness very important insights so how do we get this into the conversation so I'd professor blind from burgers or Princeton Rutgers he was here his answer was they have de means the scientific community in the world they have just started asking the question let them break their heads over it for the next 50 years and they will not get an answer and then they will they might take it seriously so that's the way things go where the hand of yes you it's the pure subject yeah only one not two subjects yes yes there's only one subject exactly that's where the Advaita closes it Sankhya says there are many subjects but if you question closely the difference is based on body mind which are not subjective at all which are not not subjective objects so it reduces into one subject we are one consciousness seen work channel through many bodies and minds we seem to be different he is example of part and space just one more verse and I'm done oh I didn't mention Sri Ramakrishna's let me take some time today a little bit 15 minutes some more verse number 19 right so why does this difference happen why does non-duality appear as duality we know the answer or non answered maya maya be deity heat mahavidya t heat a nonmetal junket Anjana nonmetal junket Anjana Tata to bid on he thought were to bid the money he matter tom latham Brigitte but there Tom rhythm budget this difference is due to my it's not a real difference the non-dual reality does not become a dualistic universe it appears to be a dualistic universe just like the rope does not become a snake or a computer cable or a trickle of water it appears like that appear like that experience like that and practical use is also there as I said practical use experience name everything nama Rupa Viva Hara in Sanskrit those continue but that does not mean it's real non duality does not challenge your experience of the world that you are seeing something non duality does not challenge it non duality just asks you to examine the reality of what you're seeing non duality does not challenge the experience non-duality challenges the reality is that real or is something else appearing as this that you are seeing a waking world that you see your dream world that is not challenged that would be foolish I'm seeing it how will you challenge it but what is it that you are seeing I'm not denying that you are seeing a snake examine it you will see it's a rope I am not denying that you're seeing a subject of time a subject experiencing an object if you consider it through this non dual reasoning you will see it is one thing appearing as two and we have this experience in dreams nobody denies that you saw things you went to met people things happened but then when you woke up what happened what what do you say now oh it was all in my mind my mind alone became all those people my mind alone became I the dreamer in the dream and my mind itself enabled me to have so many experiences all of that all the time was my mind there's the dream example in this case we are not talking about one mind imagining all this it's consciousness in which or being existence in which all of this is appearing I'm I'm asking you to hold on throw out of the idea that it does not contradict common sense science or even religion it underlies all of them ok having said that now let's go back to the ok one more thing here the second line all this appears due to my and what is Maya don't ask I have a whole talk coming up on its so I am you've awakened to get three talks so I'm going to have a whole talk coming up on it and later in March on Maya got toe toe with D Imani he mocked a common remember but Bridget he says supposing really all this had emerged universe and individual beings had emerged then what would happen then immortality would be lost if a cause actually produced an effect if there is change you know the changes would take it then God would die there would be birth and death and old age and decay things would be subject to real change if there is real change how can there be non-duality or any kind of freedom possible whatever you attain to will again change it so the change is not denied but it's reality is denied that this thing is beyond this changeful dualistic universe if you admit dualism to be the ultimate truth what he's saying then immortality is also impossible what the dualistic religions promise is a logical impossibility it really you were born really you are a body and you died and you are made immortal you can again die if those things really happen it can really happen again okay stop there one additional note I want to add from Sri Ramakrishna's point of view five five quick points what sri ramakrishna steak with all respect to go to father as you can see except if you are a hyper intellectual a committed non dualist you would find it insulting go to power disposition if you are told Oh in the accepted position but it's the base camp ours is the peak of the mountain it's useful to climb up to the peak how I am happy with it because I can go from base camp to the peak but if somebody says that one is my reality I love my Krishna and that's it wouldn't that person find it insulting to be called that your whole religion is base camp for us is step one for us so that's like putting down a condescending approach still far better than the non the dualist approach which regards others as false to be killed murdered converted or whatever if this is impart but er it's it's a much more gentlemanly approach but Sri Ramakrishna's approach I find it today so today when I was in the interfaith conference if I said this it were created a riot non dualist and all the other religions are just base camp or just manifestation and nobody would have understood luckily it wouldn't have created a right nobody would understand what I am talking about but Sri Ramakrishna's approach is genuinely something which is wonderful and effective in the modern world I have seen people really accepting this quickly five points what is freedom accretion is approach is take on the spiritual life and harmony of religions and everything first the ultimate reality god brahman is both personal and impersonal transcendent and imminent it's not that the impersonal is the reality and the personal is is a lower reality that's what Nandu father would say a duelist would say personal is the only reality and your impersonal is a falsehood no impersonal also real personal also real completely transcendent beyond this world also real that same thing is nothing other than this world itself appearing as this world transcendent and imminent that is the ultimate reality okay number one point number two to realize that is the goal of all religions and the goal of all life the purpose of life is to realize is a general term deliberately so you can call finding your oneness with that I am that that's realization but I want to live close to that as an individual being and that is my personal God that's also realization I want to spend an eternity with my beloved Krishna or my Christ that's also realization why not and the proof is that people have experienced these things are mystics of different religions they have experienced enlightenment in different ways so the second point is that to realize this this reality this ultimate reality is the goal of religions is the goal of human life what are religions for for that for that that's the point of religions not to unite and fight with each other not to do politics not to save the environment they can do all that you can do politics can save the environment fight with each other also hopefully not but that is not the purpose of religions you might even people are confused what is the point of religion the point of all religions ultimately is transcendence liberation whatever you call it every religion has a term salvation Nirvana moksha whatever that is the point what is that it's realization of this ultimate reality it is also the purpose of life itself if you ask generally what are we here for what's going on so Ramakrishna's view is this God realization is the purpose of life proof if you do it if you get it you will be completely and totally fulfilled forever proof look at the lives of the great Saints in all religious traditions one thing is common they were so diverse but one thing is common to all of them they didn't complain there are no more grumbling and complaining about life they had found something which took them beyond suffering which gave them ultimate meaning even in suffering even in death even in the most tragic persecution they found some very deep meaning which enabled them to transcend all this so that is the purpose of life also second point third this is an easy one then what about the differences in religions there are all different paths to this realization so this path metaphor different paths of up a mountain or the truth is once they just call it variously or the same body of water different people have different names water and and pani and Jah different words for the same reality so different religions are they are different people accuse us in the Ramakrishna order of saying that everything is the same we don't say that so Ramakrishna never said it he said they are different from each other it's good that they are different why would you all want all paths to be one path all paths are different but they all lead you to ultimate transcendence I will not even seen the same goal the same ultimate end of human life transcendence freedom liberation if I say same goal some people might object no my goal is different from you all right but does your goal finally satisfy you you have to say yes yes good then fourth point in all this diversity you are fully justified to think of your path as the best yes you are allowed to think of that you have must have your own Easter chosen ideal and your own way of practice we must have it Swami Vivekananda said let the sect's multiply until every human being as a sect of his or her own that's good as long as you don't have to have sectarianism fighting against each other they're all good as noticing sri ramakrishna he never criticized in any religion never and yet he did criticize I noticed one thing he criticized quarreling in the name of religion he says those who quarrel in the name of religion are not serious about religion they have other agendas so third is one must forth of one must have a path you can be loyal to your fat somebody asked me can I think my religion is the best I said in the UN I said it not only you can think that your religion is the best you must think it if you go to a shop and you buy your cereals your particular brand you certainly think that's the best one otherwise why would you buy it you choose something out of a wide range only because you think it's good is really good for me but that doesn't mean other person also can't choose the other another thing I think that's the best one for him or her so you must think your religion is the best or your path is the best for you then the fifth point is important and see ramakrishna says has benefits so many paths so one must have respect for all paths point number five for loyalty to your own path and sincere practice five respect for all paths not tolerance acceptance not only that not don't be in your own little ivory tower learn from other paths learn your path seriously and learn you will enjoy it Sri Ramakrishna said if you take a pancake and eat it this way or that way or that way it tastes equally good learnt some Swami tapas yonder called Sri Ramakrishna he was a glutton for God he wanted to taste God in so many ways you learn from other religions it will strengthen your practice today we are lucky to live in a world where the common spiritual heritage of humanity is our heritage thanks to this free society we're living in information freely available it's all available to us don't get confused as a danger confusion is a danger but you can take advantage of it so these are the five points Sri Ramakrishna's view of religion ultimate reality not just this but always they can be considerate imagery how you can reconcile them see there is a objection this this is a logical way of looking at it but if you say all the dualistic reality is talked about by these religions are all equally true then it becomes a little illogical is what iron wise is trying to reconcile there but ceramic Krishna was not doing logic he saw something and he told us this is true it works he was very pragmatic look at the lives of the Saints it works if they follow their own path do they not become holy yes they do then second point that the purpose is to realize this purpose of religion purpose of life third point all our paths they're all true they're all paths to that realization that means they are all true and they're also they are not important in themselves they are a way of realizing thought be sincere to your own practice fifth respect accept and learn from other traditions love other traditions you see for me if I disrespect God in some other form in some other religion it's exactly for me the same as disrespecting three direction let me see what about Brahman Brahman you can disrespect Brahman doesn't care you are Brahman if you disrespect Brahman you are you're expecting me your own self it it has no reaction at all you are little in awe of God so disrespecting God is a bad thing so if I disrespect God in any religion literally I'm honestly telling you it's exactly the same thing as insulting God in the form I worship just let's hear the question Saguna yes [Music] now it's the opposite in Advaita Vedanta God and back to God apart again goroh pada would say ninguna Brahman is the reality Saguna is an appearance is a relative reality god of other words in it guna is the reality it is the ultimate reality so god apart is a two-step approach to it sri ramakrishna would say both are real if you say that no no logically how can both be real he said don't worry about logic realize God in whichever way suits somebody asks only three Ananda what was three Ramakrishna's philosophy non-dualism dualism qualified monism and swami torreón and they said if you push me if you press me for an answer give me one answer when I would say his philosophy was in whatever way possible in whatever manner possible realized God in this very life itself and be free that's that's the plaza Shanti Shanti Shanti he hurry he own that Sri Ramakrishna