Video 41

42. Mandukya Upanishad | Chapter 3 Karika 23-24

let us start with the Mangler Andy the shanty mantra om Bodrum Kareem II wish I knew Yama Deva petrm pass a moksha here yatra steerer irani Stosh wagons ustinova he Mishima Deva hittin Yahoo Yahoo Faustina in drove with - raava Sistina foucha Vishwa Veda swass Tina Stock Show Irish Tony me Faustino brie hospital the auto home Shanti Shanti Shanti so we're studying the monocoque Erica and in the third chapter what go Rapada is trying to do is prove the truth of non-duality with the help of reasoning so he is using reasoning to show that that reality is actually non dual which is the difficult task because we immediately perceive that it is not so it seems to be plural plural means there are many many entities and different seems to be there everywhere and he wants to show that this is an appearance and actually it is non dual in the process of doing that he is now in a critique of duality the critique of duality is going on that's what we saw in the last class critical allottee means he is criticizing the dualistic philosophies the dualistic teachings which hold that ultimately dualism is right dwell ISM I mean by this I mean God is different you are different the world is different the way it appears to be this is the ultimate truth so those philosophies and there are many of those teachers in India at that time the Sankhya the nya the the yoga by shaker my mom's all of these schools they were duelists metaphysically speaking so he's criticizing that why is he criticizing that he says from from Gaurav odd is very clear that moksha liberation ultimate freedom is not possible in dualism it's possible only in non-dualism why is it not possible in dualism because he says look at the conception of the dualistic fellow philosophers so what is their idea of freedom by the way just as an aside here Godfather has this very interesting technique throughout when he refutes when he refutes an opposing school he uses their logic so he says we whatever the opponent claims he takes it yes that is real you and I mean it not that Israel he takes it as alright let's let's assume that is so then see what follows so suppose you say liberation or moksha in dualistic schools let us listen to them what do they say what is there moksha like you there is a heaven there is God and you go to heaven after death it's a different place you have to wait what for going there and so on ultimately you go to heaven and in heaven difference dualism is still there God is different you are different yes it's a blessed duality now you remain without any suffering in the presence the blissful presence of God who is different from you and in the blissful presence of other Wednesday class people you know who are also all different from you all are liberated and all remain in great bliss in the presence of this God may be singing praises or playing the harp or whatever it's not just Christian heaven Islamic heaven the why couldn't our the Weisner was the Kailash of the shaivites all of these they all are like that so you notice that dualism is present there you don't the the difference is not erased difference is there which is so well if so if there's difference then notice there is a difference in time heaven is not now but later after death heaven is not here not distinct something else that where there is time and space and difference is definitely limited there must be change if there is time there must be change if there is change then there must be the possibility of of it ending if it started there is a possibility to end there is the fear of immortality if there is the fear of mortality then notice fear anxiety so that it will one day come to an end if it is not here it's there then it's definitely limited in space there is something which is not that freedom not that heaven it's only in contrast to this that heaven is set up so it's not an infinite freedom it's a limited freedom then if there is difference there's better or worse in in the Hindu conception there are multiple habits and in heaven also in different all the dualistic religions you'll find in heaven also your stay there is subject to certain differences there are holier-than-thou there are holier people who are who are a better of maybe maybe they get a better seat the box in the theatre or something like that and you get a you can hardly see the divine show go on you could look it up then you are there's a difference there is a hierarchy there too so the day with ours or the angels they have it better than you even if you are in heaven whatever so there's the multiple multiple hierarchies there too which leads to what is called drag of Asia likes and dislikes I mean if you you are still in heaven but if you are asked would you rather be that spot in heaven and this part and say yeah that's better when I'm I'm a heavenly person so I don't I'm not jealous but I know it's better that might sound silly as a silly but the the seed of that difference is there and in the Hindu mythology's we find the gods that there's jealousy among the gods and dislike and jealousy among the gods - in Greek mythology's of course we find so there's rivalry and jealousy and competition among the gods - so in dualism all this is possible you must at least in principle admit that it is possible then this is not more sure this is not freedom if ragged ratio as possible preferences are possible jealousy is possible envy is possible unhappiness it is then possible then if there is a beginning then an end is possible and means death death there means coming back from heaven now moksha liberation or heaven is admitted by all dualistic religions they claimed to be eternal but a beginning and an end how can it be ternal I was in this eternal heaven for about a week know it convict look at your own words you couldn't mean be a Bahamas for a week that's pretty close as close as you get to end eternal heaven but no so this is God upon this claim that if it in dualism dare claim of the spiritual journey is from one dualism this one to another dualism a better one but that is does not solve the problem so notice in Vedanta all sorts of heavens are admitted they don't doubt that they might be heavens true like it could be but going to heaven is not a solution of the problem so in Vedanta gora pada says that the spiritual journey is not from Dwight - Dwight from dualism to dualism the spiritual journey is from Dwight - on Twitter from dualism to non-dualism from difference to non difference to oneness that is the spiritual journey he's trying to show that it immediately follows then that the spiritual journey is not a journey in space if there is non difference or non duality what there must be here too it cannot be a journey in time what is then must be now - if it's not different it must be beyond space and time if it is beyond space and time non-duality always beyond space and time so it cannot be a journey in time it cannot be that you have to wait to become liberated it cannot be that you have to go somewhere to become liberated it must be here and now if it is here and now advaitha claims then the spiritual journey can only be a journey mean I have said this many times it cannot be a journey in space it cannot get journey in time it can only be a journey from ignorant to knowledge that's what a traitor says the journey that the what we are trying to change is from not realizing to realizing the spiritual journey according to Advaita is a kind of waking up Upanishads themselves say that is kind of waking up you wake up from what then you realize that I was asleep or or sleepwalking or in dream or you snap into a reality that is the nature of liberation in our data so that's what he has been talking about till now in the for example if you remember in the last class we did this verse where it said that supposing duality this difference it was all one you're this duality suppose is a reality it was non dual to begin with and we fell into our universe of duality the old myths of every religion has the fall of man from a perfected state - like this and if this fall is real if you really have come here and then by our spiritual perverts we establish a oneness so he says what good is that what good is that artificial oneness he says note if the original oneness was such that it could be disturbed into difference then the new oneness which you have created through your spiritual practices how good will it be it's a created an artificial oneness which you have created if this difference is real and you buy your own spiritual efforts by a prayer meditation grace of God or whatever you have you achieve a kind of oneness what's to say that that will be stable if the original oneness was not stable if you're originally perfect now you have really become imperfect and you're going to become perfect by certain efforts what's to say that that produced perfection also will not fall apart will almost certainly fall apart if the original perfection fell apart this produced perfection also could fall apart you see it's a devastating critique of the those the fall of mankind of mythology there is a meaning to it that there was some perfection we have fallen from it a graters is the real meaning of it is not that we have truly fallen away away from our inner imperfection it's just that we are not aware of it it's just that we don't realize it it's just that it's as if we were asleep to our reality that's it that reality is still there it's not gone so the non duality is still there it has to be realized now we will come to the next verse verse number 23 we did 22 last time 23 so please repeat after me Goethe tobu total huapi boota boota Tovar p sweet germany summer shruti he sweet germany summer Shruti nice Cheatham Mukti öktem ciao nice Cheatham gupta yukta may yet add vomit in a turret yet add poverty in a turret all right before I go into this a little one point what adwaita claims is a thoroughgoing non-duality according to advaita never has been a time when there was duality it was non duality all through in the past now in the future in fact past present and future are tying words we have to use them because we can't speak otherwise it has never been so that there was duality and now there is real and non duality no it's always been non dual there never has been a place that it's non dual here but dualistic there no adroit as claim is that it is everywhere it is the same non duality so there is no scope of duality there is no in Hindi they say our self that means a gap a possibility it's a thoroughgoing non duality always was it just that we are not aware of it in philosophical language it means that duality never was create created see when I'm seeing duality you know what I mean the universe and us as individual brain beings it is Brahman all the way through all the time never has the Jeeva the individual being ever been created or the world also has never been created according to Advaita Vedanta I don't look puzzled remember the clay and pot example the wave and water example no part has ever been created apart from the clay it's clay and clay is true no ornament is actually there apart from the gold no wave is actually there apart from the water itself in that sense there's no separate thing so there is no separate thing called an individual being and there is no separate thing called an called this pluralistic universe philosophically speaking then brahman is neither cause nor effect brahman was never born as this universe effect if brahman was never born as this universe universe then brahman cannot be the parent of a universe also there's no uni so what is it apparent of if there's no Sun where is the father so Bremen is not a cause either we have been talking about this throughout Brahman is neither a cause not an effect in sanskrit carrier car and of election neither effect nor cause in terms of the shoe T or Upanishads Brahman is never is never really a creator of the universe Brahman is not a creator of the universe because because there is no there is no universe to create so in that case Brahman is not a creator if the universe is not created a Brahman is not the creator what are we saying and what is there but a man alone is there neither creator not reiated but here the question will be just a minute the Upanishads the source texts of Vedanta all of them just about all of them talk about creation all the opposition's many of them most of the initials actually they have an account of creation where did this multiplicity come from and if they say they it all came from Brahman so they talk about the multiplicity coming and they talk about it coming from Brahman therefore Rahman is the cause of this universe the universe is an effect and the universe was created because your own Upanishad said so after all are you not teaching Vedanta Vedanta is based on the Upanishads you see the question then you see the question the answer will make sense what does God have power to say to this say to what what does he say to the question that then why do the open shuts talk about creation what God our Father says is a very nuanced argument he says that we do not deny the appearance of duality that this duality appears to you we do not deny it it appears we all experience it it would be crazy to deny it what I'm seeing if Advaita says no you are not seeing it it's a out with you I am seeing it what Advaita denies is not the experience of duality Advaita denies the reality of duality by which I mean just if it sounds confusing no it's not confusing when you are seeing so many things and people in your dreams if somebody comes and challenges they when they are not challenging that you you're seeing it what they're challenging is is it real or is it a dream that's possible entirely nowadays virtual reality you're in use experiencing so many things around you and you are there in a particular environment with objects and people around but you know it's not real so you are seeing it but it's not real there is a reality underlying it just as there is the reality of waking underlying the dream so you can experience a dream and challenge the reality of the dream all together you can experience the snake and challenge whether it's a real snake or not you can experience the Mirage water and challenge whether it's real water or not it's entirely possible that's what we are doing actually that's what adwaita is doing adwaita does not deny that that you experience multiplicity explore experience plurality but it denies whether this plurality which you are experiencing is it real that's what it what is its denying yes I'm coming to that coming to that then then what happens to the question why do the opener shirts talk about the multiplicity now Advaita says gurupada says that the Upanishads they try to explain our experience of multiplicity my question is is the adverting says when the Upanishads are talking about creation is it a real creation they're talking about or is it an apparent creation is it a real creation they're talking about or an apparent creation you are seeing something nobody denies that but what you are seeing is it real or is it an illusion or is it an appearance the Dwight in the dualist will say when the universe when the opening shots talk about the creation of the universe God creating the universe they mean a real creation God has really created something apart from God a creation when the the non duelist will say when they open it shirts talk about create they do when they talk about creation they're talking about an apparent creation so the debate is not whether the Upanishads talk about creation or not they do there's no doubt about it the debate is not whether you see multiplicity or not there is no doubt about it you do see multiplicity even the enlightened person will also with these eyes see many things with these ears hear many things with these this tongue taste many things obviously even an enlightened person will do that the sense organs are meant to give you information about the world but what is the knowledge or the the realization of the enlightened person that all this multiplicity is and appearance of one thing similarly the open Ishod ik sayings which talk about the creation of the universe do they mean that it's really created or do they mean it's an apparent creation you might ask why would you even ask such a question if they're talking about the creation of the universe do you obviously mean the universe was really created no no no no that's not the teaching methodology of definitions the teaching methodology of the Upanishads is they start from where you are from what we see what we accept as real they start there and then step by step they take us to their conclusion what they want to say so to understand the teaching of the Upanishads you must take it as a whole you can't take it here the Upanishads are speaking about the creation of the universe so the universe is good Brahman is the creator the universe is created finished dualism no no no read the whole thing where does it where is it pointing towards what what is the conclusion in the title I open it for example a classic example I'll give try teary open assured the puncher Koshiba vega the analysis of the five sheets of the human personality I hope you know what I'm talking about and not totally head loss analysis of the five sheets of the human personality the food sheet under my kosher the vital sheet pranamaya kosha the mental sheet I can't show you unless you're a telepath monomeric oh sure but it's we are all it's all evident to us within inside when we look there's a mind beyond that the in turn select the wig annamaya kosha beyond that the causal body the anandamaya kosha beyond that and so and goes like that but if you look at the opposition itself when it teaches what is the enquiry day who am i what am i at man what is the Atman means the self what is the Atman that's the enquiry there in the taittiriya upanishad at each of these five stages it says this is the Atman instead of saying this is a covering or a sheet it says this is the Atman the sheet word came much later Upanishad the original Upanishad just says the food Atman the uneme ah Atma this body is the self you are the body now if anybody stops there AHA the open Ishod has said that we are the body so open assured says we our body that's it finished that's unfair don't stop there if you go little further just the next paragraph it says the body is not the Atman where did it say that it says a new enter Atma pramana by aha other than this inner - this onion means other under means inner Atma the self is the pranamaya that means body is not the self anymore if it's other than the body if it's inner - the body then the Atman is something different from the body just see it can't it it repudiated what it started with it started with bodies the self now it's saying the prana is the self next you know what will happen it will say the prana is not the self the mind is the self the mind is not the self the intellect is the self the intellect is not the self and the Ananda - the self and so on it goes what is it doing what is it doing why is it saying one thing and denying it the next moment it's teaching it's leading us towards a reality in a reality so why couldn't it say straight away if it says straight up it did say straight away Satyam Yanam an ant Amram Brahman is the is infinite existence consciousness we say aha what is that so open it says okay I got it I see I see where the problem is what is evident to you is the body evident to you yes there and therefore step-by-step the opener takes you in and therefore to know the meaning of the open ition you can't take one thing out of a context and say that is the teaching of the Upanishads so you have to take the whole thing there is a process of extracting the meaning from a new Panasonic passage there's a whole process so read the whole thing and then you see it's talking about the Atman the pure consciousness apart from the five sheets which will mention the five five levels similarly with the with the shooty get used to this word Shruti means the Vedic passages with the Vedic texts are culturally here the Upanishads are called shooty shooty literally means that which was heard so the Shruti texts dealing with creation are just steps in teaching just as body is the Atman prana is the Atman these are steps in teaching open it sure doesn't want you to stop there it'll be disastrous if you stop there read the whole thing through to the conclusion like a mathematical proof so sometimes you assume something that's come to that's completely wrong let the let the sum of three angles of a triangle be more than 360 degrees okay if you stop there no it will come to a reduction where the observe demand so therefore the sum of the angles of the triangle cannot be other than 360 degrees of course it can be depending on what kind of geometry are doing it's only after we graduate from school we know the other geometries also all right yes yes very good notice what she said they all say the same thing remember that okay go on correct instead after translation its stories there are other things - stories arguments examples things like that and terminology different terminology for each of the Upanishads but they all boil down to she set one thing yes doesn't matter you have got the essence of it yes all right now it's good that you said that because the next thing I'm going to say is so you are saying the real battle is within within these two positions the duelists say that the creation texts Shruti Shrishti Shruti in Sanskrit creation texts they refer to a real creation and the non duelists are saying it's just a way of teaching it's not a real creation they're talking about ultimately they point to that conduct that self thyself how do you decide so the question is what is the purpose what is the essential what does it boil down what is the one thing that it boils down to is their duality or non duality what does it boil down to real creation or not or or an apparent creation how do you decide she read it and she got it but how did she get it so the question is how do you interpret a text how do you interpret a text we'll go into that let us just see the verse itself now it'll make sense 23 buta Toa abuta Tovar peace with Germany Samar Shruti he should ehi the Vedanta texts the upanishadic texts in different definitions they talk about creation is no doubt about it even the non duelist cannot deny that they talk about creation but is that creation a real creation or an apparent creation butit osika satirist in sanskrit abuta too apparent not not a matter of fact on this subject some are Shruti he the text is neutral the text is neutral neutral means no where does the open you should clearly say that yes this is real or no where does the open I should say no this is false how do you decide then you decide by what something that she has unconsciously done we all do when you systematically read something we all do it it is called textual interpretation there is a an English word for it there's a whole science of it's called hermeneutics hermeneutics in ancient India there was a school of philosophy purva mimamsa purva mimamsa in fact there are six schools of Orthodox Hindu philosophy we know the names Nia vaisheshika Sankhya yoga purva mimamsa and tara mimamsa sutra my mom says more familiarly known as vedanta yes the veyron to society so poor when utter the word mimamsa means analysis in sanskrit the meaning is pujita which are a reverential inquiry my mom says and revelry reverential enquiry in many Indian languages the word mimamsa still is still there it's an old Sanskrit word it's still retained in many Indian languages I know in Bengal it means to solve a problem to arrive at a conclusion any other Indian languages Hindi similar meaning any other languages mimamsa summarize summarize you see the meanings are pretty similar summarize to solve what to conclude to draw something out with essence out of it that is me man sir now what is this poor worm imam shantaram imam sir remember the vedas which a vast bulk of literature can be broadly divided into two parts the karma kanda and the ghee anaconda the part dealing with rituals and the pad part dealing with knowledge with the part dealing it with knowledge is what we are trying to do the text we are studying now Manduca Upanishad Manduca Mundaka Upanishad itself is a part of which part gianna kind of knowledge part the ritual part we have not touched we don't study I also not studied in any detail and you're glad you have not studied if it's bewildering its vast and bewildering and and more of course it would be you'd be at a loss at what it means here in modern American 21st century America in 21st century India also people would be at a loss because that kind of ritualism has more or less disappeared more than two to three thousand years ago it was replaced by the ritualism of the modern hindu what you see when you go to a Hindu temple the elaborate poojas they are based on the original Vedic ritual ISM but they've changed they have evolved over thousands of years but broadly based on these two parts of the Vedas two schools of philosophy developed one school of philosophy based on the ritualistic portion of the Vedas that is called purva mimamsa Poobah means earlier an analysis or the summary summation of the earlier portion of the Vedas and mimamsa is basically an inquiry into the text to extract the meaning of the text and utter a mimamsa Vedanta it means inquiry into the latter portion of the text the latter portion of the text Upanishads which we are doing now why am I saying all this because it was those guys the poor were mimamsikas they developed the techniques which we are applying now because they were faced with this bewildering mass of texts how do we draw logically draw some meaning out of these texts so they developed machinery linguistic machinery procedures algorithms if you will to find the meaning of a text and very interesting you will notice that it's basically what we do when we study seriously study any text and this machinery can actually be used to process any good if you have a serious text you want to know the meaning of that if you put it through this you will get some meaning out of it so it's a procedure for finding out the meaning of texts I am NOT spoken of this earlier I think do you remember in Vedanta we talked about three stages Shravana monana needed the asana shravana means hearing or study and actually i just leave it at that hearing or study but actually the traditional pundit would say study is a systematic study what systematic study what is the system the system is this which I'm going to talk about him I don't think I mentioned this earlier so this system is actually not developed by Vedanta it is developed by pour-over mimamsa we have borrowed it from them I sometimes say Vedanta is was like the hero of the Indian systems but it stands like I think who said that Einstein was somebody I stand on the jaw shoulders of giants Newton said it I stand on the Newton said he stands on the shoulders of giants that's why you can see so far similarly Vedanta stands on the shoulders of the earlier philosophies if you see Vedanta if you open up the box of Vedanta the fine logic and argumentation the whole thing is based on work done by the NIAAA philosophers you just taken that from them the the apparent world of Maya you want to understand this the physics of this world is based on the white shaker philosophers the idea of pure consciousness which is so central to Vedanta it's not developed by vedantists taken from Sanka philosopher the meditative techniques used by vedantins are taken entirely from you can tell me yoga philosophers and the method of understanding our precious Upanishads the techniques of study they are taken from poor were my mom second so all of that and take all of that put it together put Brahman and up to Amma see on the top and stamp it Vedanta is such a nice product very nice open it up look at the parts made in China and that's credit to China I'm saying sir is Vedanta is just taken the best from different philosophies and put it together and put it put a label on it that's us it's not us so let's see what the poor were mimamsikas have contributed what are we seeing here the method of study of extracting the meaning from a text why are we interested because right now our problem is the text is the same from Brahman came the world but does it mean a real world or an apparent world how do you know only by applying this look what does it say and it's called a six-fold system a six-fold system in sanskrit shut with a Linga one first one is I'll write the Sanskrit and tell you the English meaning Opa Opa Sahara what does it mean beginning and end beginning and end second I'll explain each one abhyasa no it does not mean practice immediately jump to the conclusion if you don't know Sanskrit you are safe if it knows has key to jump to the wrong conclusion Vyasa does not mean practice here that Vyasa means a repetition which is why it is called practice in in ordinary usage with the original meaning of Vedic meaning of a biast is repetition repeating something a biasa number three I will say I will tell you how to apply this app or bata app or a poor bata uniqueness unique feature what uniqueness the unique message here number four oopah party OOP party OPA party which means reasoning argumentation number five a topic T a topic T which means eulogy or praise eulogy or praise EU l ogy praise eulogy what is the advertisement what's being advertised here number six paalam result column result column result now using these six six folders using the six four system you are to extract the meaning of a text decide this wrangle whether they are talking about a real creation or an unreal creation by the way the book when I say texts talking about creation we have come across them tight teary open assured says the smart bar eight a small dot manner arkasha so muta from that from that Brahmin which is this very Atman the space was born or space arose Akash add value by or agnya agnya privy from space came far from a wind or air from the air came fire from fire came water and from the water or the primitive cosmology which most civilizations shared but noticing the important point here it is saying all of them came from the Atman or from Brahman now the question is are they serious or not serious how do you know how do you decide because this Shruti Shruti Samaha it said it is neutral there you have to decide how do you decide by using this will see another roopa anish on the Mundaka Upanishad your tone now these frigid a green a teacher is how a petition here somehow won t asada Purusha ke shallow Imani the talk Sharad some poverty have some very beautiful poetic as the spider projects and withdraws it web as shrubs and plants emerge from the earth as indeed the hair and nails emerge from a living body so from the imperishable akshar odd emerges this cosmos so but clearly no for our purpose the dualist will say aha the cosmos emerges from the the imperishable being so is it do they really mean it or not and the dualist has the first shot at it it's a that why wouldn't they mean it they're saying it so we mean it here is the cosmos and it says it has come from Drummond so Bremen is the creator regard was created the universe that's it but no not so fast you have to you can't just take that and stop we have to see the whole thing in context how do you apply this very quickly I'll go through them oopah krama opus and Mahara beginning and end when you consider a text don't just read one portion of it obviously that's just for starters read the whole thing and notice at the beginning and at the end any well-written text will start from a preposition they want to prove it may not be the first sentence may not even be the second one but if you have read through one or two paragraphs you know what they're going to talk about if it's well-written we talk about speeches given by teachers the monks so some are very systematic they'll start with one two three four develop it and some are what ask which is called the monkey jumping speech the jump from this branch to that and they end up you don't know where they don't know where they started where they went and ended up where so if it's like that none of these systems will work all systems will crash but if it's a well-developed text where the author knows his or her own mind what they're trying to say it will work it will definitely give you some meaning out of it so the beginning and the end what does it say in the beginning and what does it say in the end and also literally may not mean this literal last sentence it could mean the last paragraph or two so look at that what does it say notice as you read through they say the puncher kosher we wake up it says the body is the self but very soon as you go further it says body's not the self mind is not the cell prana is not the cell and so on and in the end it talks about something beyond the island of my Akasha so beginning and end up hatha abhyasa repetition what is the one thing that is being repeated in a speech so a politician is giving a speech what is the point of his speech you'd see what is being repeated what for me basically that's what's being repeated so that's the point of the speech if you've understood that then you've understood what the person is trying to say if you see an advertisement any product what's the point by me so a bias is repetition what is being repeated so you take the CH and August 9th the 6th chapter of the chandogya upanishad a classic Vedantic text there's one sentence which is literally repeated exactly the same nine times there what is that sentence dr. Amma say that thou art that thou art that art every few sections come back to the same conclusion till you can't escape the conclusion they're trying to tell us I am that whatever that is with so repetition that's another thing number three up or Vata what's the one thing you can find in this text which you cannot find elsewhere the same stories you can find elsewhere the same cosmologies you can find elsewhere but what is the one crucial thing which the opener shots are trying to tell you that you are that reality so that must be the purpose of the whole text then oppa patio perfectly means argumentation reasoning every speech text philosophical track they'll all have a chain of reasoning which is developing lawyers brief defending lawyer it ultimately ends with not guilty I'm saying that my client is not guilty so the defense lawyer now the prosecution will say this is guilty with all the arguments developed to that because of one two three four five six because of these things hence this so if you look at the arguments presented there you will get a sense of what they're trying to say if you look at the arguments presented in chandogya upanishad you get a sense that they're trying to establish the unity of the individual and the cosmic that there is some underlying oneness so over what is reasoning at our party what is praised what is eulogized by that you will understand the meaning of the whole thing by this all sorrows will be transcended you will attain eternal bliss debt is overcome by this mean no other way this is the praise of this knowledge then what kind of knowledge of they're talking about we're not talking about physics or English or Sanskrit no sorrows are increased by the technology what knowledge it's this spiritual knowledge by which we realize our nature and go beyond suffering so by what is being praised here you see what debonding mean and then result paalam the result of this moksha liberation by that you understand what kind of little knowledge are they talking about result of all this entire exercise look at what they are trying to say what do you get out of it if you see what you get out of it or at least what is promised then you know what they are talking about so if you put these six together Cooper kribo for some aha the beginning and end abhyasa repetition a pool whatta unique message Cooper potty argumentation arthapatti praise or eulogy and phalam result and then apply it to a text like the vedantic text you can extract the purpose of it the meaning of it and when you switch so it's a wonderful mechanism it is ancient Vedic hermeneutics the English word I was using is hermeneutics and this is what is meant in the classical sense by the word shravana hearing what are what is a scholar studying Vedanta in the classical way in India what are they doing they are doing things like this they have got the text and they're trying to extract the meaning of the text by these exercises what will be the end result the end result will be nothing more than what she just said I read the whole thing and it seemed to suggest that I am that absolute reality that cosmic self whatever you called it yeah so all so for example she mentioned the stories the stories here would come under at a party the story of Yama and nachiket uh you know usually it's a student going to a teacher so the little boy who went to the house of death these stories are eulogistic that they are praising the be teaching in that way so with all the stories and arguments and examples and whatever promises all of them are pointing towards one teaching if you apply that to this opening what we are the Vava present problem a present problem is is creation real or not we'll see we will see that the Upanishad does not mean it this way it says that the universe was created five elements and at the end when you come to it it will say there is neither sky nor earth nor fire nor water nor air having said that was all created so what would we expect a world of five elements none of it is there neither body nor mind nor intellect it is all Brahman in that case what was all this you talked about creation it must be an apparent creation why did they at all talk about it if they did not mean it they used it as a teaching mechanism how does it work as a teaching mechanism because that's what we see unless you begin with what I see I will not understand what you are talking about so you must begin with the body you must begin with the world and then show me what you want to show me compared to God the Father they all nicely gift-wrapped what they want to say in stories guru pod is analytic yeah he he opens up the gift wrapping you might say he opens the box and shows you the inner workings of the box what's going on there we have got beautiful stories and conclusions and poetry in the opening shots dramatic but if you want to read the reasoning behind it if you want to get the same vision God up either has or the opening show de cresci's have then you have to hold gorup other's hand and step by step he shows you so right now what is he showing us he's showing us that your question was why do the Upanishads talk about the creation if there is no creation at all no so he says there's no real creation opening shops are talking about an apparent creation how do you know that through this process where does it say so two words are used in this verse this chittim gupta yukta mature the purpose is ascertain nice chitta means ascertainment ascertaining clarity miss joy means clarity determination clarity ascertainment that ascertainment of the whole text the meaning of the text the purpose of the text is done by this this is the stage of shravana hearing study the next one next word is yuktah Optim reason reasonable what we have ascertained the whole text is telling me I am Brahman or in this case the texts are telling me the universe is an appearance it's not a real creation is it according to logic and reason it must be according to logic and reason also so that is the stage of mononym second stage in Vedanta so in these two little words miss cheetah Mukti of temperature Shravan and mañana are hidden here meditation will come to later so miss cheetah means by the process shall be the Linga by the six-fold process of getting the meaning of a text we ascertain each t-thomas ascertain that the Upanishads are not trying to say that there is a real creation they're trying to say there's an apparent creation there is definitely you're experiencing a creation but it is apparent the reality is Brahman show me show me he says look I will now show you text it will it will follow this method I will now show you text from the Upanishads themselves which flat-out contradict what they said a few take a few paragraphs earlier the five elements were created the world is created like a spider egg creating its web and withdrawing its web and so on so all these texts what they are saying are flat-out contradicted a few passages later on by such such texts if the duelists a brahmin actually created a universe then they cannot give any meaning to these texts which are coming now the non duelist can explain the whole thing the texts about creation of the universe so-called creation and these ones also which denied the creation if you talk about creation and deny it what your meaning was that creation was an apparent creation not a real creation twenty-four Nahan on et Tom niod neha Nani teach'em Naga Indra Mahavira tepee in through Mahavira tepee aha Yama no buta Oh JA Yamano buta Maharaja Yayati to sahaja yogi to serve such text sense Nana na Nana na na stick in Chennai we'll talk about it such texts as indra pure Rupa Yeti Indra Maya people group a year tell explain it Anna Jaya mono bahudha ajja ajja ajja ajja Amano Buddha a variety these are textures given three texts - from Upanishads and one from another vedic hymn called purusha sukta my Ayodhya fee so all the creations are by Maya which means apparent creation all this universe you see is a projection or an appearance like our dream universe like our dream universe you see everything there is a sky and the lake and the forest and the people and the animals and the birds and you have a body you have a mind to and yet all of that is imagined in the sleeper's mind you are asleep and dreaming up a world none of that was actually produced that's the example what does it apply to you are that that infinite existence consciousness bliss in which the non-dual reality in which this dualistic universe appears subject object you seeing a universe where as you this year and what you see are actually one underlying reality so this is what he is saying now he says look I'd considered these texts if creation was real then how will you explain these texts in the same openness endo punishes itself you will find cut rope initialed the story of Yama and nachiket the little boy who went to the house of death there is this text is there nananana nananana stick in China which means there is no plurality here whatsoever there is no plurality here whatsoever nee na hija hija means here right now here this universe which you are seeing as stars and planets and oceans and people and living beings here where they seem to be millions of entities here itself the open assured claims there is no plurality whatsoever you are experiencing plurality clearly you're experiencing plurality and the open assured says there is no plurality what does it mean then the experience must be just that an experience the underlying thing must be one oneness there must be an underlying oneness here that's what the open assured is pointing towards then the open ition is not denying that you are experiencing a plurality but it will say that this plurality must be like your dream plurality all the things that you see in the dream are nothing but your mind similarly all the things that you experience here by sea I mean not just see hear smell taste touch think conceive of remember imagine love all of that is an appearance in existence consciousness you I listen to carefully follow this what I'm saying that one which experienced oneness and you know feeling elevated and being convinced about this that one somebody experienced it you did all right but but you you you felt it was good and that one which experiences the back pain and the suffering and the apparent failure of trying to put these teachings into practice somebody experienced that also aren't the two the same one I'm trying to get the distance between no don't try to be that consciousness as a physical body notice all right oh let's stay there stay at the point of failure I am my physical body because I feel the pain you know what advaitha would say because you feel the pain you are not your physical body no but but just instead of dismissing it we just how can it be is advaitha an aesthetic I was attending a talk at Stony Brook by professor in them Chakraborty a brilliant philosopher who by the way is going to speak here next month last week of April so he was saying whether Indian philosophy is analytic or not it's certainly analgesic we you see there is so much pain so what would Advaita say to that to so much pain Advaita would would say that the one which experiences that pain one which notices the coming and going of that pain is that is that permanently linked to the pain no that same one was there when there was no pain the same one is there now with which sees no pain there so in that one the absence it knows the absence of pain and the presence of pain also no matter how dramatic and how terrible that is the presence of pain the one which is aware of both the absence of pain and the presence of pain here's a question yes you are getting it one which is aware of both the absence of pain and the presence of pain is it in pain no yes so you still have to do take care of the back window that is by all kinds of no the medicine rest whatever is necessary you did not yes you are you are that is a great thing to learn just just hold on to what you just said I did not slip back to base camp it's a trick of the mind but yes it felt like that that feeling like that is the mind this is thinking oh that little rascal that much yes it's the mind it felt like that that experience is created by the mind and the one which experiences that experience that one is not not subject to it it is not at the peak of the way it is the peak and you are that peak you cannot slip away from it yeah this this happens this happens after one begins to get an understanding of it one keeps thinking I am swinging back and forth between that don't worry just hold on to this thing that even at the worst moments in the moments of pain and apparently you've lost your temper or you're feeling depressed or you're feeling sad all the negativities you can think of but you would not associate with a spiritual state when you are feeling that know that what is the one thing common to this and the good state you will realize the real thing try this exercise now imagine yourself experiencing the elevation and the peace and the and the delight of the Advaitic thinking non-dual thinking and the one experiencing the pain lying in the bed and vivid continuous sharp pain your Varian singh now tell yourself that I am the one which experienced the absence of the pain I am the one experiencing the presence of the pain I that one am eternally free of the pain in me the pain comes and disappears I am the witness of the presence and absence of the pain remember this is not non duality I'll take you there wait if you have understood so far this much you hold on to I am the witness of what of the presence and absence of the pain so there are two things now follow carefully very carefully the witness and what it witness is the presence and absence of the pain now do this look at me take the witness and what it witnesses presence of the pain absence of the pain and put it aside put both aside even that witness is not real it's also a function of the mind when you hear these teachings the mind sets up a witness like that it's good that it set up be set in that then push them aside witness and the witnessed what remains after that you will see you cannot express in words you can you can and not only that after some time you won't need to do it it'll be automatic all right no even when you refine the witness consciousness to the best you can through all the Advaitic teachings when you get a clarity about the witness consciousness no still it is the mind only after doing that we're getting a clarity about the witness consciousness here the movie of the world I am the watcher of the movie of the world still the mind having done that now push both aside I can all I can only say that I cannot do any more than that this is just take both of them and push them aside what remains [Music] don't say if you say something else will come back again in notice try to notice just feet is try to notice try to feel that you are watching the movie of the world you are in the audience you are watching the movie of the world world means your life stay in that that's a good thought but it's still a thought then the next moment with one sweep the movie watcher and the movie both of them push it aside you will get an enormous sense of space and freedom and you will know that's always there that's always there no you won't you will see what remains will be non-objective what will disappear isn't is are the objects right and that still Maya somebody could say that yes I get this idea suppose I treat though all the experiences of life as a movie and I am watching it I am the witness remember this not a droid that sank he actually I'm watching it but as she said it could be a bad movie I could be not be fond of the movie of my life at all I wish it was that other person's movie sit staying in the penthouse in near you know you know in Hollywood Beverly Hills or something maybe that movie would be better it's a movie I know but still I prefer that movie to this show that shows you're still very much part of the movie that's why this exercise is necessary the witness and the witnessed the movie watcher and the movie to go to that point also it's a great relief we are no ANOVA at the point we don't even know it's a movie wheezing this is real and I'm part of it to make this a movie itself is what arthritis to a bit forgot a part is doing then you become the movie watcher that's itself is a big relief but there's something beyond that after coming there pushed the whole thing a said I can't split it in any more words than that but you can sort of psychologically understand what I'm trying to say then don't look for what is left you can't you can't do anything then when the witness is gone the witness is the looker you will actually get the feeling you didn't everything will disappear logically it will seem like everything will disappear it is an emptiness that's why then ba Buddhists say it's an emptiness Cheniere Mahajan near the great poet but the great void is also the plenitude it is poornam not attached right correct in fact what happens is what happens is as she said even when you're doing a little bit missing thing see if the real thing is if the mind is purified then the real witness is understood very quickly if the mind is not totally purified there will be what is called ragged Oh Asia likes and dislikes even when you tease it apart the witness and the witness the movie and the movie goer the movie course still has certain criticisms and comments on the movie that is still it's still the way it is still the witness tinged with the mind it's an impure witness that's why I said push it aside one last effort is necessary if you go to the real witness you will know there's nothing more that it lacks it is it does not lack anything it does not want anything so doesn't lack doesn't want is it very bored it's not bored in fact the times in our lives when we feel the most alive those few precious moments which we all have in our life sir that's where you somehow got a glimpse of the real business in the midst of all of this imagine being there all the time you have no complaints there no problems there no lack there so there is an enormous freedom and space and light and peace there all the time and it's always available and from that point from there you can continue to act in this world you can still act in this world this is apps you real life will go on but it'll be a life of the universal in the particular ok let me just let me just hold on to questions let me just complete these texts he has given us three texts what is he trying to show if you think creation is real make sense of these texts you cannot nahan on a stick in China the carto phoenician itself says there is no multiplicity nana means multiplicity plurality there is no multiplicity here in this enormously plural universe there is no multiplicity whatsoever even while you're experiencing it can you say that you can say that in a dream you can say there is no multiplicity here whatsoever because it's a dream it's all one mind it's only one thing right now you can see what you are seeing here is giving the example yesterday I think what you are seeing here men and women chairs and photographs and the ceiling and the ground and the carpets pictures all of it all these different entities by the time they reach your eyes they are only light a chair doesn't reach your eye or flower doesn't reach your eye you'd be blind in no time at all only one thing reaches your eyes by the time it reaches the level of sensation level of objects plurality by the time it reaches your eyes level of sensation only one thing light the moment it goes into the eyes it makes becomes a victim becomes images from there it's not even light or images it's just little bursts of electricity in the optic nerves going racing to the brain by the time we're process which is completely mysterious now which they're only beginning to study now how do those tiny electrical activity in the brain get reconstituted into mental experiences in the mind but we are having now perceptions sight sound smell taste touch never for a moment ring that you are seeing the world oh no no no you're seeing representations of the world in your brain no scientist will ever doubt that that's what's happening we never have any access to the external world and not only perceptions but a perceptions emotions memories desires all of them they're just mental representations appearing and disappearing appearing and disappearing so by that time the entire universe of diversity is just mind thoughts in the mind and those thoughts in the mind they have no presence except in consciousness if you are that light you the light are not there that universe a perception a perception nothing will be dead will just disappear into the void ultimately all the variety is reduced back to that one light which shines within you you might say no no no what you mean is it's all out there but I in here it is like that no no out there in here are all in here even though out there what is this out there you could say the same thing in a dream here and there you would wake up and see the whole thing here and there was in my mind here space-time object it's not that they are out there and being recreated in the brain that's what the materialist would have you believe adroit a says look closely to your experience your experience is fundamental time and space here and there then that now and then they are all within your experience it's not that they exist are outside and you are seeing them now so that one Christmas is the the fundamental clay out of which the pottery of the universe is built it's a fundamental water out of which the ocean of the universe is manifested so that oneness is there right now Nihon on a stick in China and also notice in grammar Asti is present tense there is no plurality here now if you say it was all one before the universe was created all right that seems to be typical religious belief in many religions but to say I have the chutzpah to say it is all one now Asti present now that means the diversity plurality we are seeing is only apparent there is a oneness underneath this it's a great great thing this oneness this is the salvation of humanity this is moksha this is heaven this underlying oneness here you are immortal and you'll be reunited with your loved ones in heaven that promise it's only a pale imitation of the reality which is your forever United with your loved ones here and now but also your your hated ones that's why I have no know anybody with anybody because they're ultimately they are all your loved ones your eternally United your United means what two things can be United you're not even two you are one it's perfectly all right at that level here at the level of the movie it could be a comedy or a tragedy yes that's the movie try to make a better movie it's a nice project but remember it's the movie yeah the screen underneath the movie the comedy and the tragedy is the same thing Brahman is exactly the same as in the past and the present even past present and future are also improvement Brahman is not in past present and future so we are talking about two different levels so if you are worried about the cosmic culture now and glory of the past if you if you if you're a romantic about the past good try to make a better world now or at least become a better world for yourself but that's just changing the movie the underlying reality is perfect as it is so the next one the next text is from Riyadh our neck opening shot in Rome IRB Peru by the whole thing is not given here in Rome IRB in Peru piety that's from Riyadh our nick Upanishad to 5:19 the two five nineteen years Indra by the power of Maya assumed multiple forms so here Indra does not mean the chief of the gods Indra it means Brahman so Brahman assumed multiple forms what are the multiple forms all this men and women the birds and the beasts stars and planets all of this that one reality appeared as this how my RV by the power of Maya here the Maya actually means a kind of magic a sleight of hand so the one appeared as many did it become many know if it became many the word Maya he would not be used so there is one reality now which is Indra in according to the words the terminology ter but it appears as this world of heavens and earths and hells of gods and demons of birds and beasts of life and suffering and birth and death this is at this level and underneath that there is one one divinity which you are you see this is one divinity you might say good for that divinity but what is it to me but you are that divinity so you are safe there then the next text is even more radical it's from the purusha sukta suka Ajay Amano bahudha yo T Buddha a variety a ja Amano bahudha variety it's purusha sukta is it's not an open issue it's from the Vedas it's a highly regarded Vedic in in fact in I remember this is particularly evocative for us in below but our main monastery if any monk passes a there so we are allowed by the municipality to cremate the body there ourselves so there are a lot of rituals associated with the one is in front of the divine mothers temple holy mother's temple today is the cart they are Ganga which she looks out on that so at night usually the public is not allowed in there unless they are very close devotees of that Swami whoever but only the the monks and the novices brahma charities are there so we take the body down the steps to the river and the it is given a ritualistic bat and new ochre clothes are put and the begging like the begging bowl this there's a sack which was your monk goes around which is like little back to beg for food a new one is put yes sir it's like the monk setting off on his last journey and then arity is done of that the body of that Swami and at that time the novices chant the purusha sukta this one and what does it say AHA Amano Buddha a variety here Brahman is called purusa its begins with Sahasra shirishama purusa sahasrara Sahasra pot that being has a thousand heads that means myriad heads myriad hands and feet that means all of us together they are that purusa petrucha literally means a vast being brahman is called purusa here and it says bahudha a variety it is born in multi various forms it is born in multi various forms it appears in multi various forms of what of this universe so the dualist will say aha so it is bound in multi various forms you are saying but before that it says AHA Amano being unborn being not born being not created being not not being born it is born in many forms what does it mean it appears in many forms remaining exactly the same God alone appears as this universe God alone appears as this universe a little aside here hold on a little aside here and that in Christian theology there is something that's often you know like it is criticize that pantheism many Hindus are supposed to be pantheistic Oh Spinoza is supposed to be pantheistic it's not pantheistic pantheism is when that ultimate reality becomes this universe but here the ultimate reality remains as the as the ultimate reality the glory of God is untouched Brahman is exactly the same and you are that ultimate reality and it appears in so many forms so therefore we conclude my IR Jyoti Tosa that ultimate reality appears is this universe through Maya not actually undergoing changes or creating not actually becoming a calls or a creator creating a real separate universe right right so there are two levels is an answer one is I'll give you the Vedantic answer do you understand the question why is it like this why is not like something else the way Dante cancer I'll give you add the core the Vedanta cancer and the scientific answer which we'll discuss later is that the code they are the same answer the answer is causality there is a certain cause effect relationship the Vedanta cancer is this this whole universe can you give me why at all you say it's a projection of Brahman all right let it be a projection of Brahman but why at all projected why at all this game of life so one answer the standard answer is all of us individual beings we have a load of past Karma you say when did it begin a separate question did not begin beginningless but here we are because it's a cyclic idea in Hinduism the universe is created it exists and it then is withdrawn back again in to call it a singularity Hinduism will call it saguna brahman in maya of course but we are not talking at that level now when you are talking look and look at your question your question is why is it like this which particular cosmological constants that's what you're asking that means you are already at least provisionally accepted this universe if you're asking is it non compatible with non duality my answer will be perfect you ask why is it like this I'll ask why is what like this you see this universe I'll say what universe its Brahman and see what the cosmological concept and what cosmological constants it's like asking the cosmological constants of my dream there's your dream do you never did exist so that's at that level I'll answer like that but suppose you are asking at this level so there are multiple levels and the multiple levels are because you are asking questions at multiple levels you're asking questions why does this universe have those cosmological constants now what does we don't have to say about it ultimately you're right Vedanta will say it's my I doesn't matter what you are talking about but if you want to take this seriously why is it like this and not like something else then the answer will be karma causality we have a load of past Karma and according to that we must experience the results of that karma so Brahman that means saguna brahman brahman with maya projects a universe creates worlds of experience for us to undergo these experiences and evolve spiritually thereby life after life ultimately we realize our identity with brahma so this is the story but the operative word is story isn't it all non-dual it's all non well if you go to the absolute then this is just a story so then your question would be why these cosmic cosmological constants would be perfect for creating a world for human beings to experience if those cosmological constants were not there physicists will tell you is not I am NOT by rant any more physicists will tell you life would not be possible planets would not be possible if gravitation were not such and such plants would not remain in orbit around the Sun they would go spinning off supported by carbon dioxide sure and Vedanta will actually say that's a nice scientific question investigated what Vedanta is saying the whole thing is Maya underneath is one reality from that point of view these questions make no sense at all no more then if you are seriously arguing why did Harry Potter do this we could have done that Vedanta is saying it's a story get over it thing to do with the stories enjoy it right now could the story have been else of something else yes ask JK Rowling why they did it that way but valent is not interested Whelan - just wants to say the reality is that it's paper and print and it has a story written by an author at the level of the story your questions are valid but Virant is not working at the level of the story alright but as a book why does the world exist he deals with all these questions so what is prominence relationship to the world so what Brahman is not the creator of the world and therefore there is no real world which has been created hence these questions are not relevant but even if the questions are not relevant if I were you I would ask why is the question not relevant that would the answer to that question would be enlightening it seems to me that the question is relevant in them in the Manduca context if you say why is the question not relevant what would go to father say so have you not listened to what I said the world is an apparent creation so the features of this world like the cosmological constants and gravity speed of light and the weak force or sudden things are there those are part of the friction they really are not journey into the the Enosh the central argument that the whole thing is an appearance when you say the why this way and not that way you are having implicit understanding that it is in some way real that it matters no it doesn't no matter from that point of view okay I'll come to you first yeah the question of feeling right when the question of feeling comes notice that Brahman when you're talking about ad weight it's also oneness the answer to your question is at two levels one is the philosophical answered one is the practical answer the practical answer is when you look at the lives of non-dual Saints whether it's Ramana Maharshi or rama krishna or they feel a tremendous sense of oneness with everybody some of them they spend their whole lives in dynamic service of the world in trying to do good to the world why it's just different that's the story it's not a story apart from me it's I myself the story is just an example but I myself am all of this this is the reality what is the story here is a universe apart from me I'm a tiny part of this universe born I should perish within a few instants and this mass of matter will go on whirling on without any purpose or meaning so that is the story this story is false this is what advaitha wants to say what is the reality then the whole thing that you are seeing is separate from yourself is you so very kinda would say that about when he saw India rich feel freely first if you want to be a Buddha I feel like a but they want to be a Christ feel like a Christ that all these millions hungry and uneducated and superstitious and suffering their your own flesh and blood that he dare your own brothers and sisters do you feel that oneness and that comes from adroit in fact one of my friends who's a oh my I really admire very much is I think he's a I don't know if he's an enlightened person but really wonderful Swami young Swami he said that most people think Advaita non-dualism comes from here so that's not true comes from here I never heard anybody say it in fact or in them Chakraborty the philosopher he will speak about this next month he would speak about dreams and yoga vasishta love and Vivekananda's Vedanta so yes and when you look at the lives of the saints did even the ones who based their approach or non-dualism they feel a tremendous oneness with others and just for the sake of argument if you take the materialist reductionist point of view there is no space for emotion there there is no space for meaning there the scientific worldview if you take what is now the world you have not sing science scientific worldview what is meaning nothing meaning is no existence there it's a mass of uncaring matter as one person put it if I take it was a pastor is arguing with a scientist so if I take your worldview seriously they had a bottle of coke sitting on the table if either take your worldview seriously then what is going on here and what is going on that fizzing coke in the bottle they more or less the same thing just more complex fizzing going on here love meaning life help good bad what are they in science less than nothing what we call human values from a absolutely scientific reductionist point of view what are they matter is real energy is real time and space are real that matter somehow becomes living matter the living matter over millions of years somehow evolves into human beings and in the human beings with sophisticated brains and nervous systems they generate somehow or many some house in between somehow they generate conscious experiences in those higher-order conscious experiences there are certain things like love and hate you know unselfishness and selfishness and they also can be explained by Darwinian evolution to some extent none of them survive without the brain surviving and the brain does not survive without the massive living tissue surviving and living tissue is nothing without the matter constituting it and that ultimately that whirling mass of matter is the only reality that is isn't this literally the scientific worldview today can anybody challenge that this is not what they are saying and if you look at it what an enormous lead oppressing the way of looking at the universe completely devoid of value completely devoid of meaning everything is accidental by chance so yeah so these are the two yes hold on to be one more thing I was reading a philosopher the French philosopher Luke Ferry he says so here we are in the history of grand history of Western thought he summarizes four great phases in Western thought the Greek idea of an orderly cosmos if you contemplate that then the human values are drawn from the cosmos then the Christian idea of faith in a Creator God and the salvation through Jesus Christ then this modern scientific idea of what which what I just talked about modern science right what I just talked about and then the postmodern idea of criticism of all of these and he says if you asked me to choose which is most attractive to you which would you rather have which is true and he said I would choose Christianity I would choose Christianity that means religion I would choose Christianity is the most attractive to me except rewrites except that I don't believe it I can't believe it I believe science yet it offers no hope to me Christianity offers all the hope most tempting yet it is completely unbelievable then what what remains it's the postmodern condition of humanity and this is where I feel so this body stops but this is where I feel badonk has something to offer it offers you the logic and rigor of science and the hope that religions have it gives a basis for religion it gives a fundament now you can believe in whether Hinduism Christianity Buddhism whatever it gives us a rational foundation you are that oneness the not that we are all in in one sense we are all in the same universe but but literally speaking the universe is in you that's what it's saying you are the universe is nothing but you you are this universe what you're experiencing I think this this oneness of Advaita Vedanta far more difficult karma is the car by just causality yeah that's what duality that's as I said karma is ultimately not real it's at the level of the story see when did I bring in karma notice that God had the never brings in karma anywhere he's not interested when did I bring in karma when he bought in the universe when you bring in the universe I'll bring in causality now if there's one there is no causality there's no causality we beat we that's what God apart is arguing in the third chapter Brahman is beyond causality non duality means there is no causality cause and effect the very words causality means cause and effect that means duality so non causality and non duality of the same thing if there is non causality then there cannot be carbon altom utley see the the simplest way of making sense of all of this is the the Advaita doctrine of two levels of truth the param arctic are the absolute which is the non dual Brahman and the varaha Rika the transactional which what we are inhabiting now here it makes sense to talk about science and causality and religion and philosophy so even this two level the sub truth doesn't make sense it makes sense because you are do deal with it all the time I mean I said when you're reading Harry Potter or any book of fiction you're dealing the two levels of truth there's a fictional world of what's going on and there is the world where you are sitting with a bunch of paper and print on it they're two levels of truth there if you ask a question about why Harry Potter said said such an such thing what is it a question about it's not a question about the binding of the book or the paper it's a question about the story which is going on there that's it at the level of the story causality karma is a level of the story of the fiction but adroit is not about the fiction other it is of about snapping out of the fiction you see if you ask questions about karma about cosmological constants why this or why that those are questions of science those are questions of morality ethics of conventional religion you will find there's an impatience with them in with in Gore ibadah he says snap out of it as soon as possible why dwell in the nightmare I'm just trying to understand that from the concept of and especially at the lower level if you think of this appearance already said the whirling mass of matter and gas energy I'm struggling with when you think about Brahman being a witness not participating in that in in some ways what is guiding that in a whirling mass of energy and matter forward because there are things that are happening even if you talk about the story there is karma is there someone you can account of even though the story level is chromite what or how is that happening if Brahman is not participating is the witness when you're thinking about not participating you're thinking of two things there is something happening and you're sitting apart from it so first of all that something happening you're sitting apart from it that is not on Twitter obviously it's not not not that is not non-dualistic dualism you are something and that is something they are two already but notice if that something happening is a dream then it is non-dual because the things in the dream are not apart from the dreamer it is the dreamer himself or herself who is generating the dream in his own mind that's not a separate reality it's not a theater which is being staged in Broadway apart from you a Broadway theatre if you're sitting there and watching the movie or watching the theatre then it's still dualism that two things going on and you are not participating in that you are the watcher even there there's a lot of peace if you can become the watcher in your own life but that's not what I do it I say Advaita is saying if you would truly appreciate the truth then the whole question will disappear that this is Brahman and there's not separately you see the moment you say something is happening have already given reality to this world appearance if you give reality to the world appearance then look to science and conventional religion for answers to your question what would convention religion see again with auntie you'll see notice this question is not at all relevant to what we are studying because he is not bothered by this but if you ask this question it seems to be vital how can he not be bothered by this this is the real question is it real if it's not real why would it be a real question if you suddenly discovered it was all my dream would you ask these questions why did that person say will that person be punished that person the good one and the bad one are you in the dream and there's no other person and that when the evil deed was not committed there is no evil person there's no question of punishment there there's no question of ultimate morality in a dream but what is there is the underlying oneness Brahman yeah if you still persist in asking for reasons what I exactly told him law bring in law of karma bring in God bring in morality if that doesn't satisfy you bring in science advaitha says we are completely neutral about this from from Brahman point of view from the absolute reality point of view it's not value neutral however is Brahman equal to good and bad no no no evil misery and you know untruthfulness and murdering people and is that as good as being a moral person good person no not at all from an advaithic point of view all of that though all of that is at a transactional level of reality one helps you to get out of the transactional level of reality to the absolute the other one traps you further and further in the transactional level the one helps you to snap out of the matrix other one traps you in the matrix to give modern answer to it yes so morality has an instrumental value to be religious ethical is very good from an Advaitic perspective because it's an essential preparation for enlightenment to be immoral to be uncontrolled to be impulsive is just digging a deeper hole for yourself more suffering more suffering yes yes right right so it depends on what you're stressing one side is the falsity of the world if you dwell too much on that you will see you will feel very this question will come where is the question of compassion if it's an appearance but that's just for your sake don't say that oh you are suffering it's false when it comes to ethics and morality the foundation of ethics and morality is oneness swami vivekananda that ethics and morality in advaitha not only that Swami very condensed he says the only foundation for ethic ethics I should give a talk on this once he has a there's a wonderful paper Swami Vivekananda's ontological ethics a 20-page essay by budgin our energy so I imagine Ananda which where he shows that the so I mean Vivek on this claim that the only foundation for ethics for values is advaitha that you and your neighbor are one reality that is the only reason why it says give me a reason why I should not cut my neighbor's throat if it will benefit me the only reason is by harming anybody else i harm myself that feeling of oneness immediately expressed as love for everybody love and have a to come from that and in that that article he explores all the theories of ethics it's called notes in a book it Swami Vivekananda's ontological ethics if you want I can forward it to I have a copy of that I gave a presentation on this there was a an orientation course for philosophers in the Calcutta of universe and a Calcutta University many a couple of decades ago and I used this article for a presentation on Vivekananda theory of ethics and my talk was the last in the whole day and these professors they were eager to go homey matter and you won't you won't believe it they were so entranced for 90 minutes I talked about this they kept saying who said this who wrote this I said it's not me I'm just it's borrowed good Sam there's a Swami in the below room it was written this I'm presenting it to you and I just one hand out and they kept the photocopier guy working beyond office hours which is a great achievement in India if you can imagine it and there was a queue of these philosopher philosophy teachers outside all wanted a copy of this where he shows whether it's a new toilet Aryan theory or teleological theories or deontological theories all of them have serious faults ethics which mean why should I be good the question is why should I be good what is good what is bad and why should I be good if these are the questions and every theory has a way of are trying to answer and then he takes up the theories from Indian philosophy also and he shows that there they have all had their problems and then he comes to Advaita Vedanta and shows how it can provide a solid justification you see the problem in ethics in this in philosophy from a long time has been that they put the way they put it specially in Western philosophy equally applies to Indian philosophy also that you cannot derive an art from an is art means you ought to do this you cannot derive it from what IG's exists science is ethically neutral science is its own internal ethics whatever constitutes good science and bad science but as far as the world is concerned time space matter energy had nothing to say about what is good and bad so why don't doctors will show that you are smoking is bad yeah smoking is bad for your health but ultimately after that which should you smoke or not that is a moral decision left to you how can you determine that so science is generally value neutral let's put it this way the physical universe is value neutral you cannot derive ethics and values from matter than energy and time and space then what do you derive it from so there have been these attempts and all of them have deep problems and Vivica and this claim was no there should not be a split between ethics and metaphysics between what is and what ought to be what ought to be should be based on what is it should be based on a theory of reality and so he derives ethics from this oneness that's that's a remarkable thing it I'm sure to gain popularity slowly and just by the way I on Mars gave a talk here those of you who saw the talk so it's get the book is getting nice reviews I just got two reviews from India one from I think the Indian Express or something and another one from a technical one from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences Mumbai from Notre Dame yeah so just getting very good reviews very good thank you Oh Shanti Shanti Shanti hurry he owned that set Shri Krishna Aparna must [Music]