Video 56

57. Mandukya Upanishad | Chapter 4 Karika 11-13

swasti is welfare i think that's we need a lot of that now all over the world and especially here in usa um so we were studying the fourth chapter of the mandukya karika the alata shanti prakaranam and here the main theme at least one of the main themes is taking up for consideration other philosophies other points of view and refuting them um we just saw how gowdapada in verses um you know 6 7 8 9 10 he has told us about the advaita position that our that we are the turia by nature we are uh that is our real nature he gives the examples of um you know yogi who is born with yogic powers from because of the southerner done in past birth so we are born it's like a superpower that we have that you are the theory you we are not subject to old age and death and disease um that is the body we are not subject to frustration and disappointment and ups and downs uh that's the mind and so on so that is our our that's our superpower like the siddhi of the yogi we are born with that it's our it's our real nature another example he gives is the the nature of fire for example is heat in the same way our real nature is the theory that we are uh pure consciousness um then he gives the example of the power of birds to fly these are examples given by shankaracharya in the commentary to verse number nine gora pada simply says sahaja the natural the natural ability of birds to fly the the happenings in the world of nature akritrim shankaracharya gives the example of water flowing down so nothing special is needed for that that is the real nature of things just like that and he comments shrunk around this that all these are still within maya but just as natural and as easy and as normal as that we are the atman it is our real nature then in the 10th verse he said that all beings not just enlightened beings all beings not just jeevan mukhtas or people who have realized brah amram has me every being is naturally free of birth and death and old age and disease he mentions yes tenth verse naturally survey dharma naturally what naturally just like we saw those examples of natural naturally free all beings are naturally free of old age and death and also disease and so on yet we experience ourselves as ageing as sikh as dying why he says jawante manishaya because we are immersed in this world in this wrong worldview i would not only just say worldview wrong worldview wrong self-view we are not aware of our real nature we are not aware of what this what we are experiencing that all of it is the atman we are the atman the turia but we think of ourselves as physical body the waker identified with the physical body so young body i am young healthy i am healthy sick i am sick old i am old body is sick or young or healthy or old so identified with body mind we tend to undergo old age disease death it's an appearance but for all that of course an appearance which is very very real for us so the advaitha position is this is due to ignorance it's not really happening as against this there are other philosophies all of which they say no no no the word is real the body is real and birth is real of old age disease and death these are the reality of our life and we have to deal with that so now governor father has to answer these questions view ajaatavadha that the world did not originate or in philosophical language the effect did not originate thuriya is is beyond cause and effect it no effect affect means waking dreaming effect means the world and in advaitha terms world means waking dreaming deep sleep cause and effect but turia is beyond cause and effect turia is not the cause um there is really no cause of the world because the world itself is not really an effect as against this there are other philosophers which we he indicated at the beginning of the chapter they regard cause and effect as real there is a real cause of the universe and the universe is a real effect a product the universe has been created in fact in all the theistic religions one common thing about god is that god is the creator um and the universe is the created and we are the created we the jivas are created this physical universe has been created and who is the creator who is the cause of all of this creator is god philosophical language we are the effect and god is the cause cause and effect is real in these philosophies and they try to justify it we also saw what god does he refutes them he has to refute he has to show that those are not justified approaches they are not logical he has to show the faults in those approaches and that he does in the next next few verses he will take it up he has indicated in the beginning of the chapter that those philosophies are to be rejected but ah in detail how are they to be rejected what is the fault in their approach what are the different approaches what are the different philosophies and what is the fault he will take it up verse by verse now basically his target here is the sankhya philosopher why it is so let me just say a few words there are two major positions here two major opponents one is the niya vaishishika school i'm taking them together niya and vaishishika together that's number one opponent and second is sankhya or i can say sankhya yoga let's just say sankhya sankhya school is the second opponent what is the issue at stake here the issue is both of them consider cause and effect to be real there's a real cause and it produces a real effect this universe godopath of course rejects that and he has to show why both are wrong what is the difference between the two we have i just mentioned in brief i have touched upon this at the beginning of the fourth chapter the difference between the two is asadkar yawada and satkaryavadha the terms mean this karanam means cause caryam means effect cause effect now the question is the effect did it exist in some form in the cause or is it new let me repeat that the effect the thing which is produced did it exist in the cause pre-exist in the cause in some form or is it something novel something new so the plant did it exist in the seed the seed is the cause and the plant is the effect seed is karanam and plant is carrion did the plant the carium pre-exist in the effect or is it something new if you say no it did not exist it's something new for the first time they are seeing it then non-pre-existence of the effect in the cause those who hold this position they are called asat karya vaadin karya effect assad not real not real before production after production it's there so not real before production those who hold this position who are they nayakas and vaisheshikas nyaya vaisheshika nya is the philosophy of gautama muni and vaishashika is the philosophy of kanada muni so they are the ones who hold this position non-pre-existence of the effect in the cause assad and the other their great opponent is the satikaryavada the sankhya yoga philosophy also of patanjali and sanke philosophy of kapila so what does the sankhya say no no the effect pre-exists in the cause not that there is actual plant in the seed if you open up the seed will you actually find leaves and a branches and fruits no but what you will find is in an unmanifest form the plant is there in the seed and that's a pretty scientific way of looking at it today we know because of our knowledge of genetics and dna and all we know that living beings they pre-exist the whole information which has gone to the making of a plant or our even our complex bodies and all they all pre-existed in our genes in our dna so it's the sankhyas say that it is the manifestation of an unmanifest effect what is causation the cause has the effect already in an unmanifest form the seed already has the plant in an unmanifest form what happens then what is production what is causation the cause itself becomes the effect cause is transformed into the effect and not randomly already the effect was there all the information was there in the cause so it just the unmanifested effect manifests that is called causation cause becomes effect transformed into effect so the seed becomes transformed into the plant it's the plant is not absolutely new or different from the seed so these are the two ah positions the first position naya position is easily dismissed actually not so easily dismissed but here governopath has not paid much attention to it there are serious objections against the nia bhaishashika position for example the i mean our our first objection we have all read science would be that the law of conservation of uh matter and energy we all learnt in school that no matter is ever really created or destroyed what einstein he did was just showed that matter can be converted and the most destruction of matter means it's converted into energy and so the law of conservation of matter became the law of conservation of matter and energy at the most you can convert matter into energy and energy can again be converted back into matter actually so the totality remains the same when you say an effect non-existing effect is created the non-existing effect is is originated then you are saying that that which did not exist at all has come into being that is a little illogical that which does not exist you can say it existed in some other form and then it came in this form that is logical but then that would become the sankhya theory so that is why this is one reason why the assad cardia seems a little illogical because it violates our idea of that something cannot come out of nothing it is something is transformed into something else even when say matter is destroyed totally it becomes energy another subtle reason why the asad kariyavada is a little illogical is if you look at the language itself non-existent effect originates the effect did not exist earlier effect did not exist earlier the plant did not exist in the seed the curd did not exist in the milk and the part did not exist in the in the clay it non-existent effect originates or non-existent effect is produced look at the end of the sentence originates produced these are words these are verbs so the verb must qualify a subject what what is produced what originates what is created so in this case what is created non-existent thing is created so the the subject is non-existent you see if you say um the man is walking so walking is a verb it qualifies what subject the man so the walking is a action which is called qualifying an existing subject called the man man is walking but if you say nobody is walking so there is that means there is no action at all but there is walking but there is nobody who is walking you can never say that that's silly walking is going on but there's nobody who's walking how can you say that but it's the nayakas are saying something like that ayahuasca are saying something like that they are saying that um non-existing effect originates so what is originating that which does not exist so this is a subtle point more grammatical than philosophical but this is another way there is a logical objection against the nayava shishika school but the sankhya school is powerful slanky school is specially also powerful because vedanta is very close to sankhya in fact vedanta just might be seen as the next step after sankhya and therefore both gowda pada and shankara they take great pains to refute to cut down the sankhya position because it's very easy to mix up vedanta for example from clay from clay alone part is produced clay is the cause and part is the effect or from the seed the um plant originates now lot of vedantic language is like that that from brahman itself the world world comes upanishads speak in this language that about this from the spider the the world uh originates from how does the universe come the universe comes from the unchangeable reality akshara that means brahman how just like from a spider the web comes the web spider spins the way from itself and then absorbs it back itself just as from the earth the plants originate the plants sprout from the earth just as from a living human body hair emerges here and you know body and hair they all all originate from the living body but it seems like sankhya satkaryawada what was already there is now becoming manifest so this has to be clearly distinguished that advaita is not even saying this advaita vedanta is making a further distinction here a more subtle point than the sankhya so the sankey position is specially selected for refutation in the next few verses godhapada will take up the sankhya position what is the sankey position sadkaryawada the effect was pre-existing in the cause the part was in a manifest form it was existing in the clay the plant was an unmanifest form existing in the seed curds unmanifest form existing in the milk or ornaments unmanifest form existing in the gold and what is production that which was unmanifest is now manifested that unmanifest part is now manifested what is manifestation it's nothing but the changing of the cause itself into the effect what happens a new form comes it looks new you can when it milk becomes curd it looks new you can it tastes new so new properties emerge new name is given pot curd or necklace it's given this new name is given to the same substance but a new appearance new use is there new properties are there so these things are manifested which are already there so this is the sankhya position satkar yawada now let us see what gowdapada says and remember what is all this in aid of what's the point the point is the the the central advaita idea that the universe was never actually produced from from turya turiya is the only reality in this universe is an appearance a good example is what god or father gave in the second chapter dream example dream example see in the dream a seed might be there and from the seed a plant is produced milk might be there and from milk curd is produced these things might be there in the dream but the dream as a whole the entire thing which we are dreaming about the whole thing is not there at all it's an imagination in the mind after we wake up when we look back at the dream we say none of that happened oh it was just a dream neither the milk became the curd nothing was there it's just an appearance that's what the advaitan wants to say i'll make it even more clear the advaithin is actually not disputing it's not disputing that milk becomes curd that vitamin is not disputing that from a plant from a seed plants are coming out or human beings are born from the father and mother no all causation as it is happening in the world is fully accepted radhwaiti never says that the milk is real and occurred is an appearance that's silly nadine never says gold is real and the necklace is an appearance no in the in the world the whole sankhyan theory is accepted by advaita let me repeat that in the world in day to day life entire sankey and satiriyabad is effect accepted by advaita but what advaitan's object to is the sankhyans say this entire universe is a product of the cause what is cause prakriti according to sankhyas prakriti is the cause nature and from that the entire universe has been produced how by satcaryawata prakriti is really a cause universe is really a product and it pre-existed in prakriti as as an unmanifest form it is now manifest advaita vedanta governopa the shankara here they say no here we part ways it is more like the dream where in the dream all your theories are admitted sadkaryavada is admitted but the entirety of the dream whatever you see in the dream the world that you see in the dream the people and the objects and the happenings and you yourself in the dream they are all they are not being produced by the dreamer's mind they are appearances in the dreamer's mind it's not actually that the dreamers mind became people and objects and things no that's the very nature of a dream it's an appearance like a in the movie if you see the movie everything is admitted in the story in the story there are events people laws of nature laws of science even sankhya law satiri about everything can be admitted inside the movie but the relationship between the screen and the movie itself it's not sadkaryawada it's not that the the screen became of the hero and the heroine and the villain and the world and people and objects and and events no the entirety of the movie appears in the screen it's not a real transformation of the screen into into the objects and people and human events of the movie just like that turiya is not transformed into the world turiya is not transformed into individual beings like us you are the thorium you remain the thorium this whole world is an appearance so satkari between the reality thorium and the world and jivas universe and jeeves on one hand and turiya there is no connection of satyaryawath between them but inside the universe that cardiac is admitted whatever theory or we can replace it with modern scientific theories no problem advaita has no objection whatever theory works for you you are welcome to it according to advaitha but only provision is the whole universe as a whole i mean they've taken the universe as a whole the theory does not apply to it it's an appearance or to put it even more briefly whatever theory works for you you are a welcome to it sabkaryavada or modern scientific theories only thing that we say is the whole thing is false the whole thing is an appearance that's what advaita vedanta wants to say as we go into these objections what are the objections against satgaryawatha let me just take a look some people have raised questions hands so shashank can you yes ramyan and then if that is the case then what is the connection between prakriti and purusha um responsible for the entire universe purusha is us each of us we are a separate pure consciousness not one pure consciousness but each of us is separate purusa purusha does not mean male or female it's it's just means being so each of us is consciousness and separate pure consciousness the rest of this universe the external universe our bodies minds they are all products of prakriti and they were all a pre-existing in prakriti in an unmanifest form so what is creation the projection of the universe from prakriti from unmanifest to manifest from abduct that is projection so in sanskrit actually we don't say creation we say srishti so srishti is projection of the universe from prakriti and the purusa with us as long as we are in this unlike unenlightened state we go from life to life lifetime getting attached to the products of prakriti what is the product of prakriti body mind so we are we are attached to one particular mind and from lifetime to lifetime we keep having different bodies and this is the story of our life until this is this is sankhya not advaitha until we get knowledge what is knowledge the difference between prakriti and purusha that i am pure consciousness this whole world is prakriti i am drastic this is drishya and you said rashta this reminds me of advaita so entire dashtag approach is borrowed from sankhya sankhya is actually the people who have got the what what do you call the patent on it so we have borrowed from them so we are you are the witness consciousness and the entirety of the universe including the so-called you the body the you the individual being they are all parts of prakriti actually so prakriti and purusha together make this universe possible that's the sankian worldview uh is is that what you're asking that is prakriti see the prakriti of sankhya becomes the maya of vedanta what what the vedanta did was it took the purusa that means pure consciousness and prakriti which is separate prakriti is matter is material jada in sankhya what advaitha did was it brought the two together instead of saying that there is a separate prakriti which creates the universe it says prakriti is the power of consciousness so prakriti is now called maya when consciousness is associated with maya and it is responsible for the creation let me put this way creation or projection of the universe it is called ishvara consciousness associated with maya ishwar the definitions of god what is the definition of god in advaita vedanta chaitanya consciousness associated with maya this mayan is nothing but the prakriti how do you know what is maya made of sattva rajasthan what is prakriti made of sattvarajasthamas in sankhya prakriti and purush are independent entities they interact but prakriti can exist without purusa purusha can exist without prakriti whereas in advaitha purusa or brahman is the only reality and maya is dependent on brahman maya is the power of brahman and also dependent on brahman yeah let's leave it at that um other questions other questions yes i can hear you this i had a is about sankhya but also since we're discussing refuting of other philosophies i'd like to bring up western philosophies as well if i may uh clearly sankhya is duelist yes but my question was about spinoza yeah and uh you know the panther spinoza is that is that duelist is is i guess what i'm trying to get at is which western philosophy is closest to non-dual it seems to me is spinoza closest to that i would say so spinoza the closest spinoza gets as far as i know our understand spinosa is it closes it gets to vedantes to vishishta venanta the organic unity of the entire universe so the divinity um expresses itself as this universe this universe is divine in a crude way it would lead to a problem the problem is that if brahman becomes this universe which is what pantheism would like to say though i though i actually doubt whether spinoza you know was saying something like crude pantheism that is little doubtful his position was a little more sophisticated than that um the problem with pantheism is this if brahman has become this universe if table chair body mind all of this is brahman brahman whatever it was right now what is brahman brahman is what you see around you just like it is their table chair and not then what good is it two problems brahman then becomes affected by every problem of the world sorrow suffering sin karma that is one problem the second problem is um linguistic why call it brahman then just call it the universe if the if god is exactly this universe right now at this point at one point he might have been the transcendent divine but right now if this is the identity of god that it is this universe then just call it a universe why call it god and just let it be a material universe and do science why even talk about god and theology and whatnot again spinoza as far as i know had a more sophisticated position than this and there is a variation to this pantheism which is called pan-enthism that is closest to advaita brahma advaita vedanta pan-antheism is the divine is expressed as this world or the divine is reflected in this world what is the advantage of that the the disadvantages of the world sin and sorrow and defects and limitations they do not affect the original which is the divine just that the sun may be reflected in water but the impurity of the water does not affect the real sun similarly so the world is like a mirror in which the divine is reflected the advantage is then all the aspects of the divine are present in this reflection like advaita vedanta that is closest to advaita vedanta still not as sophisticated as the advaithic position but i'm glad you asked recently i discovered this western philosopher timothy sprig tls break let me write the name down in um in the chat um let me see yes t l s sprig he was an oxford educated uh philosopher worked in england i think the university of essex but why is important is i was amazed to see that in today's world just recently he was there in the late nineteen twentieth century and up to nineteen i think he passed away in the 1990s or something or somewhere close to that he was working up to the 1980s or early 1990s a completely committed idealist i thought in western philosophy you know like this total idealism and hegelian kind of idealism or shock and horror kind of idealism had gone out of fashion at the end of the 19th century beginning of 20th century probably bradley was the last one or t.h green was the last one but no here is somebody 1980s and 1990s working in oxford and in wessex writing wonderful books the the triumph of absolute idealism that's one of his books a very difficult book i found is difficult to get i got one copy in the the new york public library i've struggled through one chapter but i realize it takes a lot of time and energy to understand that book but what he has done is he says if you take up spinoza he's especially spinosa but also hegel and schopenhauer and berkeley george berkeley subjective idealism and can't so he takes up all of these um western philosophers german british english language and continental philosophers who are idealistic or have elements of idealism even need shape in to some extent and he combines them into a system and he says there is really no way you can refute this and and so anyway my point was somebody so recent in western philosophy so i got one of his books is accessible just if you are interested 10 theories of existence so i am reading that now out of those i think 10 theories of existence here probably out of those theories one is called one is materialism and all the rest are idealistic theories so you can see what he likes um recently i was talking to just yesterday professor arundham chakravarti you know who gave the talk in our vedanta society and recently gave a wonderful talk on kashmiri shaivism were you there in that kashmir shaivism talk so i asked him because he studied in in oxford i think oxford he studied uh he he was taught by peter strossen and michael dermott so i asked him that did you know this gentleman tls prick i'm really impressed by his take on idealism and you're so enthusiastic he says yes this is old gentleman he loved me so much that uh when i went there first i stayed at his house and uh i said when i mentioned the name chakravarti excitedly he said he became very interested in advaita vedanta he asked all questions to um chakravarti came to india met swami lokeshwaranji there's a particular shiva temple in which you used to go and meditate they told me all these things anyway that's uh uh diversion yeah spinoza is very close taken at face value closer to vishishta dweta is there any other yes and thank you for asking this question because now we can go back i can use this question to segue into goda powder so these are some of the objections that god or father will naturally have let's let's go then let's go there um yeah the other people ask raising the hand let's wait wait let's do a few objections to satiri then we will see how where we stand um it is true there are these objections just one point before we go ahead remember these objections which you will have to satiriyavada these are not the arguments given by originally developed by godhapada actually these are um you remember gowdapath's special technique of argumentation was he played off the schools against each other so all the arguments against satga which we will see now are um the arguments developed by the niya vaisheshikas nayakas and vaishikas against the sankhyas simply he just brings forth those arguments and throws them at the sunkens so let's see some of those arguments remember sankhyan position prakriti is the cause of this universe prakriti is real universe is real prakriti produces this universe how the universe pre-existed in prakriti in an unmanifest form and has now become a manifest of the prakriti itself is eternal unborn undying prakriti goes on forever eternal prakriti and the universe is born and it dies when it is born it is said to be produced effect unmanifest effect becomes manifested effect what is destruction the manifested effect becomes unmanifested in gita also it says from abductor it becomes vector from vector to object that is the whole cycle of the cosmos so that's the ah sankhya idea what does godhapath have to say against it so these things we have read again and again in fact it's that's why it seems advaita vedanta is supporting these views but no so we have to carefully distinguish advaita vedanta from this we read all throughout in hinduism that ishwara projects this universe you know sriti layakatta that's a very definition of ishvara and godupath is cutting down all those things um so here prakriti is the is the cause of the universe now what is godupath saying let's see verse number eleven goddarnam so let me read the english the cause must undergo birth according to one who holds that the cause itself is the effect how can a thing be birthless that takes birth and how can it be eternal when it can be subject to disintegration this is gambhiranji's translation what is said here according to prakr according to sankhya sadkaryawada cause and effect are the same thing cause is transformed into the effect milk and curd are the same thing it is milk alone that is the substance which becomes curds clay and pot are the same thing it is that lump of clay itself which is transformed into the pot so prakriti itself is transformed into universe right or wrong the sankhya has to say yes that is true that's what we are trying to say karanam yeshiva now you understand karana means cause and cardio means effect yes here for those philosophers who sanctions for those philosophers for whom cause itself is the effect because itself becomes the effect for them they must admit that the cause itself has been born because according to south korea what happens the birth of the effect is just manifestation of the pre-existing effect the cause itself is transformed into the effect now he says you are saying number one sankhya says you sankian you are saying number one prakriti is eternal neither born nor dies second you are saying cause is born and caused dies that means cause i mean sorry effect is born and effect dies the universe is born from prakriti and universe goes back into prakriti that's the death of the universe and third you are saying it is the cause alone which is transformed into the effect now do you see the illogicality of the if you put them all together cause is eternal prakriti is eternal neither bar nor dies effect is born and it dies and birth and death of the effect is nothing but the manifestation of the pre-existing effect from the cause and going back to the cause again that is the birth and depth of the effect and third you are saying it is the cause alone which becomes the effect the cause is transformed into the effect so if cause and effect are the same thing how can you say cause is unborn and undying and effect is bored and dying cause unborn undying is equal to effect burn and dying how can it be both born and unborn how can it be undying and dying so he says jayamanam katha majam that which is born what is born causes burn as the effect kasamajam how is it unborn and if it is transformed bin num vennam means transform it means disintegrated that means it actually uh prakriti is transformed into universe there's a change if there is a change nityam katam how does it how is it eternal it is certainly subject to birth and death it comes into being as this universe is transformed we are born prakriti itself the unborn prakriti is born as the body for example this body it is born it ages a disease old age death whose your property itself you have just said it is unchanging and eternal how is it possible so do you see the contradiction um either you have to say it is subject to change in which case you cannot say it is changeless and eternal or you have to say it is a changeless and eternal in which case what will happen is the next verse it will say in that case the effect universe will also become eternal universe and prakriti are the same if prakriti is really eternal and universe is same as prakriti the universe will also become eternal they will be that whatever exists will become immortal then which is a very silly thing to say all beings we are obviously subject to birth and death verse number 12 just see just the opposite defect what was the first defect the first defect is your eternal prakriti nithyam unborn prakriti will be subject to birth and death if it is the same as the changing effect world the opposite problem will be the changing world the effect that will become immortal then if it is the same as the immortal prakriti ah the unborn prakriti number 12 karana number 12 so let me see the translation translation if it's number 12 according to you the effect that means the universe be non-different from the cause cause means prakriti then on that for that reason the effect universe that too becomes but less because prakriti is worthless and if that be so how can your cause be still eternal how can the cause the prakriti remain eternal because it is non-different from the effect effect means universe which is subject to birth so both ways either say both are immortal or you say both are changing but you cannot do that the whole idea of cause and effect is practicing is unchanging and eternal and the world is changing is born and it dies bodies are born and age and die you are caught in you know two irreconcilable things how does advaith reconcile them for advaita no problem because the reality is only turia the unborn ajam turiya eternal theory can very well serve as the background for the appearance and disappearance of the universe appearance and disappearance of the universe does not affect the theorem itself yeah so this is karana if it is if the effect is same as the karana karya is same as the karana effect is same as the cause then the effect will also become unborn because you have said that the cause is eternal and your effect and cause are the same and the second line is exactly repetition of the first fault jaya mana if the if a cause is born then how can you say that the cause remains unchanging prakriti remains uh prakriti remains eternal yes so this is a defect um in the satiri these are two defects what are the two defects one if you identify prakriti and the universe cause and effect then either the cause will become subject to change subject to non-eternity cause will become born and it will die or the opposite will happen the effect will become eternal neither burn nor dying both of which that means causality will not work according to sabkaria water that's the whole point again let me remind you gaurav pada's objection is to the ultimate causality whole universe is produced from prakriti that god upon the objects too he does not object to milk becoming curd or seed becoming plant there if you want to apply satkarya water no problem clay becoming part no problem and you can go ahead let me just state the advaita position the dwaythera position is brahmavivarta prakriti parinama let me repeat brahmavivarta prakriti parinama what does it mean the whole universe with from the from brahman's perspective whole universe is an appearance just as the snake is an appearance in the rope not that the rope has actually become a snake the snake is an appearance in the rope this appearance is called vivata once you admit the appearance that it appears in the appearance there is parinama that is sadkaryabad is admitted okay i have introduced number of terms let me clarify the original term satkari of other is simple that the effect is pre-existing somehow in the cause the plant is pre-existing somehow in the cause the seed all right now this cause and effect relationship can be of two types actually here in satgarya weather within satge also advaita also admits satgaryawada and sankhya also admits that karya brother but the advaithic sabkari about is little different the the two types of safari bothered this one is the sankhyan satyaryawata which we have been discussing till now cause is transformed into the effect the milk is transformed into the curd curd actual transformation takes place so this is called parinama parinama means transformation actual transformation something is changing so parinama the parinam of other is what is one variety of satcaryabada but what is the other option the other option is without any actual change it appears as the effect so rope snake is also there in the rope but only as an appearance the rope only appears as the snake without actually becoming a snake the desert only appears as the mirage water without actually becoming water there is no change in the rope looks like snake mistake illusion there is no change in the desert looks like water there is no actual change of the mind into anything in the dream but the entirety of the dream people and places and objects and events are all produced and experienced appearance that is called vivarta so there are two one is parinama one is vivarta sankhya is vivart let me repeat sankhya holds that actually prakriti is transformed into the universe advaita holds that maya advaita holds that brahman is not actually transformed into the universe thuriya does not become actually waker dreamer deep sleeper tulia appears as waker in waker's world dreamer and dreamer's world and deep sleeper and the potential world of the darkness of deep sleep when i say universe what does universe mean in mandukya it means waking universe dream universe plus the the car on a causal the potential of the deep sleep these are appearances actually thorium has not become these things this is called vivarta advaitins has a severe objection to sankhya parinama at the ultimate level so from brahman if you say universe has emerged brahman has been transformed into the universe so that's that's where uh advaita would object to spinoza advaith object to spinoza there um where spinosa says god has become this universe so spinoza you know he was ostracized and persecuted by christians and also his own jewish community baruch spinoza is jewish he was in amsterdam grishi yes amsterdam yeah so this is something unacceptable again little side note here you know why it is unacceptable to jews or to christians or even muslims because what theory of causation do they hold they don't use these terms but what theory do they hold in our discussion they hold that earlier theory of the nayakas asat karyawada creation out of nothing god remaining separate from the universe out of nothing the universe was created so they all the abrahamic religions hold that and that is of course simply dismissed as illogical spinoza saw this great defect and he said where from where can the universe be produced except from god because god is the only thing that exists so from god only this universe is produced then god must have been transformed into the universe that is the samkhyan idea all of them they say this advaita does not agree advaitha says in brahman universe appears not that brahman is transformed into universe so now this is the meaning of the phrase brahmavivarta prakriti parinama or maya parinama you can use the word maya parinama brahma vivarta maya parinama what is this universe appearance in brahman brahmavivarta and transformation of maya maya is transformed into the universe but maya is not ultimately real so there is no real ultimately real universe we may use all these complicated terms but just about every villager in india says these things when they say some maya is exactly what it means what we are saying he was saying here okay questions in chat just uh all right let's take let me do one more objection verse number 13 objection to sankhya so um i've given two objections one more third objection to sankhya to the parinam of sankey or sabkariya word of sankhya this objection is little technical let me quickly go through it verse number 13. what is this is further objection to song can remember all these objections were developed by the opponents of the sankhya the nia by sheishikas verse number 13 let us see the translation gameranji's translation the disputant has certainly no supporting illustration who holds that the effect is produced out of an unborn cause if the produced effect is held to be born out of another born thing that too leads to no solution okay that might sound very mystifying but it's not actually it requires little background according to the sunkens prakriti the source of this universe is inferred you might ask how do the sankians know that prakriti is the source of the universe they say they have an inference they logically reason it out now inference here godupath will attack the inference of the santia see inference in indian logic is of this form i haven't mentioned it earlier also let me repeat inferences of this form um so what does it mean inference is always based on observed data so all our scientific work is based on inference a lot of our research in social sciences everywhere is based on inference even our common day-to-day activities are also based on inference what does it mean the example is this classic example there is fire on the hill because i see smoke wherever there is smoke there is fire just like i saw in the kitchen now what does this mean you see there are certain cases where we get knowledge by seeing seeing hearing smelling tasting touching we get this knowledge directly by our sense organs that's one kind of knowledge called protection but a lot of knowledge which we have like in science on many things in day to day life also we do not actually see it or hear it but based upon what we see and here we make an inference we reason it out in western logic aristotle and logic this is the classic example is all men are mortal socrates is a man therefore socrates is mortal now whether the doctor says mortal you did not check but you know that all men are mortal you know that socrates is a man now you put these two together you can infer that socrates is also mortal in indian logic this logic is developed by nyaya so nyaya school it's the same kind of inference but you notice one slight difference in the greek logic all men are mortal socrates is a man and therefore socrates is mortal done in indian logic if you put it in these terms wherever there is smoke there is fire there is smoke on the hilltop so there is fire on the hilltop this would be the form but one additional thing is added in the indian uh anumana in indian inference anumana means inference one additional element is there that is called udaharana udaharana means example so when you give any reasoning in logic or indian logic you have to give an example you say from a distance you see smoke and you infer there is fire on that that hill there is smoke on the hill so there must be fire there how do you know you have not seen the fire how do you know how why you have to ask the reason hey too what is the reason the reason is wherever there is smoke there is fire how do you know that because i have seen it earlier the two i have seen together this is very vital smoke and fire have seen together earlier where in the kitchen i have seen both smoke and fire together in the kitchen and so i know wherever there is smoke there is fire now i am seeing only smoke and therefore i sent the fire trucks there there is more coming out fifth avenue i don't know if there is but ah right now it may be there because of the rioting now the fire truck will rush there because somebody is burning something ah and so the fire truck has to rush there now fire brigade did not see the fire they saw only the smoke by smoke they inferred fire why because they know that smoke and fire are connected this connection of smoke and fire is called vyapti vyapti is a technical term very big term in philosophy books and books have been written because you can see whole inference it turns on this vyapti this connection if you can establish logical if you can establish beyond doubt smoke and fire are connected then by seeing one you can infer the other if there is smoke there will be fire not the opposite wherever there is smoke there is fire just as in the kitchen so this part is if it's more or less clear let me see what is the objection that god or father has to the sanctions the sanctions they say that they infer the existence of prakriti why they they give certain reasons now god of father says from the cause and effect that we see in the world you cannot infer infer a cause which which is you know which is not also an effect all the causes that we see in the world are also effects um seed is the cause of the plant seed is the cause plant is the effect but seed also is an effect seed is produced by the earlier plant and you can say the seed itself is an effect of the earth element pritivita so seed also is an effect of something else and that earth element is also an effect ultimately sunkens go back to the first cause prakriti which is not an effect of anything from that all the effects have come everything has been produced by prakriti prakriti is the original cause remember we are talking about sankhya but the same logic is later used by all the theistic philosophies which say god is the first cause in christianity in islam judaism vaishnavism shaktism god is the first cause what is the cause of god no cause of god god is causeless cause god is the first cause god has no further cause and children keep on asking who made the universe who made the world god made the world who made god so there the philosopher stopped god or in the case of sankhya prakriti is the first cause there is no cause of prakriti now gowdapp are the objects here or at least it's a it's an ayurvedic objection which it brings forth here he says wherever whatever we have observed all the cases of cause and effect all the causes themselves also have been effects they have also been produced see anything that you show whether it's milk and curd or clay and pot everything even the cause clay or the milk is also an effect it has its own cause and that causes its own cause we have never ever found a cause less cause a cause which is only a cause and not an effect itself every cause that we have found is anything you see where did this body come from it's an effect from my father and mother but father and mother also not only cause of this body but they are also effects of their father and mother every seed we say it's a cause but the seed is also an effect of the earlier tree and that's an effect of the earlier seed and so on so we have never actually come across any example of a causeless cause of a first cause now you see what is the objection you see if you try to make an inference about prakriti there must be a first cause what problem will you land up he says 13th verse you will not be able to find an example what is this problem of example in indian in indian logic an example is to be provided you cannot only give this vyapti you have to give an example where did you see such a thing smoke and fire are connected where did you see in the kitchen in the stove in the match lighter matchstick the smoke and fire in incense stick smoke and fire is there so i know the connection of smoke and fire i can give you many examples just like that this case also is true but in this case of prakriti what example can you give there is no drishtantha no example is there so godhapada says drishtanta tasya nasty for those who argue that from an unborn cause causeless cause the entire universe is produced from prakriti entire universe is produced you cannot give a given example in this world of experience now if if the sun can say all right i will i will admit then let prakriti also be produced that prakriti also be a co it has its own cause it is produced by some maha prakriti or mahakaran or something like that then the same question will be there that maha prakriti or that original prakriti which is before your prakriti what is the cause of that is that without cause or with cause then it will lead to what is called regressors ad infinitum in sanskrit it is anavas tha dosha infinite regress i hope i'm making sense i'm having fun at your expense maybe so um you cannot infer the creation of the universe anumana inference cannot be done because there is no example of a causeless cause and in the syllogism the inferential structure you must provide an example if you say that all right i give up the position that prakriti has is caused less suppose prakriti also has a cause it will lead to infinite regress then in both ways you cannot provide proof that prakriti is the cause remember in from god apart in in god upon this mind the idea is that brahman or thorium is not a cause at all so any theory of causation he will find a fault with it ok up to this so these are the defects in the sankhya position let me see the questions quickly sashank so you're looking at the chat so the first let me look at the chat chat yes how does science dispute this because everything in science starts only with big bang of which they do not know the origin of it yes so there is this book i mentioned once why does the world exist um what's the name of the jim holt yes jim holt's book very entertainingly written very nice so there he goes to different physicists cosmologists philosophers also mathematicians computer scientists and theologians cosmologists like roger penrose and others and he asked this question how does this universe come into existence why does this universe exist at all so you'll be amazed to see if you now know this satkaryawada of sankhya you'll be amazed to see more or less everything is a variety of satgaryawath that it is produced from some pre-existing cause that transforms itself into the universe so everything can be traced back for example to the big bang so that's one more than one chapter is there about that but why did the big bang itself happen so there i don't understand this ah abhijit and this will understand much more than me quantum tunneling what quantum vacuum was something that he talks about where these ah particles its they say its teaming with virtual particles they are not actually existent they are possibilities and they pop in and out of existence for infinitesimal uh periods of time flashes and in this popping in and out of existence and one of those things becomes somehow the big bang so i'm making a mess out of it but i but now when this was first proposed a christian theologian said see this is our creation out of nothing nothing was there from that big bank game nayakas would have been excited asad karyawada from non-existent effect comes into being this existent effect asad karyawada but when i read that my first feeling was that that space the quantum probability space what they calling it a quantum tunnelling effect whatever they calling calling it that's not nothing that's not absolute nothing even if you say it's a space of mathematical probabilities with um almost non-existent particles flashing into into and out of existence in infinite decimal periods of time even then that's really not nothing that's a lot of mathematics there to describe nothing so it is from something that something has come how do you trace that back you can't there is there is no way um one of the chapters is it from bit so from information it means physical objects and bit means from information only so from computer science so from just from information the whole universe may have come that what that means i don't know it from bit one example he gives is the whole of mathematics can come from zero see zero is just zero nothing but plus one and minus one is still zero you can get if you get the entire series of negative integers and entire series of positive integers it's still 0 together but now you have positive integers and negative integers you can do a lot of mathematics with that lot of things become possible although the sum total is still 0. so there's one one example he gives very interesting book though uh this last semester at harvard we had a very interesting talk by brian green he's a well-known cosmologist you know he has got this pbs here series also elegant universe the fabric of the cosmos um he has written a new book the end of time i think yeah so for the book launch he came to harvard and he gave a talk and it was amazing that just for a book launch the entire hall was packed several hundred people and he's a fantastic teacher he's a professor in colombia here within a few minutes he just summarized the basic arguments of his book this is sort of the culmination of his thinking about cosmology same idea same question how did the universe originate and what's beyond or before the big bang so um i was thinking what did he say i can't summarize i'm not not do i no i did get the book and but the interesting thing is in the book he talks about vedanta his brother became a monk um an iscon monk and he said he used to have interesting discussions with his brother and one of the questions in the q a was this what do you think about this ancient ideas in the in the vedas about the creation of the universe of course nobody actually mentioned satcharia but anyway so he said i don't think those are scientific theories but they are like poetic equivalents he said that he said it's like a poetic echo of our present scientific thinking um and he said i once asked the dalai lama brian green he asked the dalai lama do you think buddhism so dalai lama buddhism do you think buddhism can say something about the universe about cosmology and the dalai lama thought for a moment and he said to brian green that i think as far as consciousness and mind are concerned buddhism has a lot to say but as far as the external world is concerned we shall look to you and your colleagues for answers i don't know if i answered that at all oh one more point jim hold why the real reason why i bought up jim holt is this and jim holt's book at towards the end i was just thinking does he ever bring up advaitha he does he went to meet nozick robert nausic was a very well known philosopher of mind in usa who passed a few years ago talking about how does the world originate and consciousness originates and all that and robert not sick told him about advaita vedanta so he has just one paragraph that perhaps the ancient hindus were right after all after dismissing all the theories in mathematics cosmology and all of that philosophy finally perhaps the ancient hindus were right that the universe is just an appearance in brahman and then he says but that's too crazy and then he moves on so he does not consider that seriously back to again cosmology okay quickly three people have raised their hand so uh swamiji in this theory this in this world of appearance we are untouched by the objects of the world yes so seemingly it looks closer to the buddhist philosophy where they also reject the objects correct and that's why gaurav padha has often been accused of being a buddhist even shankaracharya is accused of being a pracchan about a crypto buddhist buddhist in in disguise yeah so there is a whole school of buddhism which uh regards the world of objects as being in the mind will reject that theory also it will come but yes it's in the same direction um buddhist will have the same direction as as god in fact towards the end of the discussion with brian greene thing became pretty crazy um somebody oh he himself raised the topic of is this universe we are living in is it a dream so one theory is of course it's a theory that elon musk himself supports it's a paper by a mathematician philosopher long ago actually several years ago where the idea is that um the concept of virtual universes like you create on a computer game in a computer now imagine there is a civilization advanced enough that they are very powerful computers and they can really create a very very realistic universe that means simulated in the computer it will feel very real it'll look everything will look very real very detailed now if you consider the so it's basically a statistical approach if you consider the number of planets in the universe though it's quite possible that many of them have life and if you consider that if many many have life some of them would be very advanced and far advanced of it requires just one very advanced civilization where there will be many such computers then they show in probability that the probability that virtual universe it is much more probable than an actual universe brian green joked that it takes a lot of work actually to build an actual universe whereas virtual universe is pretty easy so now this universe we are existing in is this a virtual universe simulated in the computer of some advanced civilization maybe a child in some advanced civilization is playing a computer game just before lunch and we are all part of that game only played by a little kid in some some alien planet what is the probability that this universe is virtual versus the probability this universe we are living in is actual so the probability that the universe will be virtual is much more than the probability that this is an actual universe there is an actual universe but of all the universes which are experienced it's much more probable that you're living in a virtual universe than in actual universe so we are all existing until that alien kid's mother calls him for lunch him her it and moment he switches up the computer we are all gone then so and he says and elon must say that i believe that we are living in a virtual universe it's not a real universe we're living in i wonder how different is that from godhapada or the buddhist philosophers then next who is there yes are you muted yes you are a voice without form swami vivekananda said that i may give up this body but i shall remain a voice without form now now you have you have become manifest so you have like from um from unmanifest you have become manifest yes a little unfair to the sanchez philosophy because even in advaitha we have maya which is a causeless cause yes there is a vital difference between the maya of advaita and the prakriti of um of sankhya the prakriti of sankhya is supposed to be real the maya of advaita is not real so neither maya is real nor are its products real so if you say how if you ask how can the mind become in itself become a building a sky and a earth and a million people and so many events the answer is no it does not become a buildings and you know lakes and skies and people it only dreams of those things a mind is perfectly capable of projecting them and dreaming it within itself but it cannot change itself into a material object that's what we call a dream that's an example my eyes like that maya actually is not transformed into a universe then all those objections against satge will come into force against maya but we do not claim maya is transformed into universe the universe is the dream of of ishwara then who is there is a question from an ipad yes yes swamiji just uh two two very small questions uh you have been talking a lot about these different philosophers and you know the scientists including this virtual universe concept uh they also mention you know different dimensions that you know we are kind of living in a tree in a three-dimensional world four-dimensional actually if you take time into account and uh can we kind of you know connect or is there is there any thought in these philosophies in these vedantic philosophies about these other dimensions and my other question was related to time which was that isn't that a causeless cause or a causeless effect time itself yeah um now first of all about these other dimensions getting in touch with dimensions and all um in fact we are living in a multi-dimensional world not only four dimensions the four dimensions are what we are we are uh conscious of we are we are able to interact in four dimensions uh but i mean you just take up any standard book on on mathematical physics even brian green was talking about some 23 dimensions um predicted by by mathematics there they are actually supposed to be tiny at the quantum level they he gave a wonderful graphics to show that but they are right here we are not aware of it and we there's no way we can manipulate those dimensions just as we walk you know in three dimensions and we live through time a fourth dimension but those dimensions are also right here they are the constituents of the reality which we inhabit anyway that's physics i'm not going to that what would advaita say about it advaita would say all of that is within the realm of maya it's within the realm of appearance it's not real it's it's not an actual transformation of reality into that multi-dimensional multiverse which physics talks about the multi-dimensional multiverse which physics talks about is fully admitted but like a simulation like a virtuality the reality advaita will insist is the thorium about time see the question is is very subtle you see what will happen is advaita vedanta consists says that maya is the cause when we talk about cause and effect maya is the cause ultimately it's not brahman is not the cause of anything but at the level of cause and effect maya is the cause of the entire universe but what is maya according to advaita vedanta maya is time space causation causation itself is a constituent of maya time is a constituent of maya and space is a constituent of maya so this entire universe is like a playground in which all these events are happening and the playground here is made of time space and causation so time is part of the fabric of maya it is the same it is co-extensive with causation you cannot ask for a cause of time time and cause they come together they rise and fall together when you example our own phenomenological experience notice when we experience space we also experience time we also experience causation right now for example when you do not experience space time causation it is at the same time in deep sleep every day at night when we do not have any discrete experience of objects events there is no space no time no causation time space causation according to advaita they rise and fall at the same time and they are not real even when they appear they are not real reality is only thorium yes uh few more comments are there there's one more question hello sorry one more question uh going back to the issue of uh comparison uh refuting of other philosophies western philosophy the the concepts of god's love and god's grace as being in favor being favored by god are fundamental in various christian philosophies christianity for example but it seems to me that they don't really apply in advaitha because nirvana brahmana is you know indifferent basically to man's morality or imagination so the issue all right i understand um i have three things to say about that first i was just thinking about this you know i have been given one paper to look after to take a look at um somebody written by a a student of a philosophy in one of the leading universities here so this this student he is muslim i looked at some work done at harvard on advaita now what strikes me is when westerners or people trained in western thought come to advaita they bring their christian or islamic judeo-islamic baggage with them see the problem with western thought is if you push it far further back it what you find behind it is basically christianity or judeo-christian thought from an advertising perspective that's a our theistic framework and the problem you see the problem with that is there is nothing they do not have anything to contrast it with for an indian you understand the theistic framework very well god the creator universe devotion love surrender grace all of that language you understand what is at least whether you believe in it or not you understand what they're trying to say but you have got something to contrast it with also because you have got buddhism and jainism and say sankhya which are non-theistic they are spiritual they are philosophical but entirely non-theistic you can conceive of this world and a satisfactory explanation without god entering the equation at all um now what happens is when a western thinker even if the person is not a believing christian or a muslim or something like that or jewish if they're trained in western thought the basic theistic paradigm i see i mean i can see that it's still there the ghost of god is still there even for an atheist in the west so when they'd come to advaita they'd i've seen it so much it's an unconscious urge to somehow reduce it to a theistic pattern that somehow their devotion must enter into it grace must enter into it somehow nirguna brahman has to be reduced into saguna brahman somehow the saguna brahman concept is more sophisticated than the nitguna brahman concept which is not at all so it all comes from the tendency of not being able to understand anything more than a theistic pattern which is why buddhism is so intriguing for a western mind how can there be a religion without god at all so this is one point i wanted to make second point is that what about grace and love and devotion advaitha does it make sense yes yes it does remember advaitha can be understood at two levels at the absolute which is thuriya neruna brahman alone and their only your only relation with that is me you are that absolute or at the at the vahrika transactional level moment you talk about god love grace morality all is at the transactional level at that level does advaita vedanta accept god and grace of course it does look at the text of advaita vedanta look at the hymns of shankaracharya any standard text of advaita vedanta will give an explanation of ishwara jiwan jagat the moment you bring jagat universe into the equation moving to bring us as sentient beings into the equation god is also brought in automatically um so once advaithic sadhu in uttarakhand he was joking that shankaracharya had to face these questions when he interpreted the upanishads in the non-dualistic framework like this any you know gaurav pardo's philosophy actually became popular through shankara so immediate reaction from other hindus was are these fellows buddhists first reaction this advaitans he was saying in hindi uh but do they go to temples do they observe go to theaters observe shraddha go to the holy deep in the ganga and shankara's answer was all of that we do it is fully accepted in what sense in exactly the same sense you accept it it is holy it is good for us transformative it brings the grace of ishvara ishwara exists except just one point which need not concern you dualists at all but one point from an advertising perspective is the whole thing is veva harika transactional which is a politically correct name for false mithya so that is second thing i wanted to say third thing so at that transactional level always all of dualistic religion is admitted just as we just saw um sadkaryawada is fully admitted at the level of clay becoming part or milk becoming occurred there advaitan will not insist that milk is appearing as curd or clay is appearing as part no if you want to say clay has been transformed into a part good go ahead we have no objection there but whole of universe is a transformation of prakriti or of turiya no no no that is what advaita vedanta objects to the third point i want to say is nirguna brahman neutral regarding our morality it seems to be just what you said now swami that all of morality and ethics if it is at the transactional level and brahman is near paramarthika there seems to be no connect but remember the transactional level and the the transactional level and paramatic absolute level are not disconnected the transactional level is on the foundation of the absolute the transactional level the rope and the snake are not disconnected the snake is an appearance in the rope the rope can exist without the snake but the snake cannot exist without the rope the snake appears with the help of the rope it's a misperception of the rope similarly this universe including ethics morality religion love god grace all of this depends on nirguna brahman without nerguna brahman none of this would be possible what does this mean for ethics actually swami vivekananda he our swami bhajanandji has a wonderful wonderful paper ontological ethics of swami vivekananda where he shows the only justification for ethics is advaithic only justification for ethics is advaithic it is this oneness of all existence that the difference is apparent false the reality is this one thurian brahman that is the reality from there only you can derive ethics the brahman is existence from there in sanskrit also the word satyam truth comes from pure being love you know it comes from the ananda the bliss aspect of brahman verity integrity of knowledge it comes from the chit aspect of brahman so all of morality you can derive from the nature of absolute reality yeah in fact though i don't know how this is relevant i was uh privileged to attend a course on ethics taught by professor amateusen at harvard last fall so it's it's uh interesting how there's a great struggle to find a foundation for ethics the whole idea in western essex is you cannot derive an ought from an is what one ought to do cannot be derived from the reality of this world so that's why science and ethics are divorced if you have a scientific theory that does not tell you about what is good and bad how you should behave or should not behave that it's still up to you whereas advaita vedanta gives you what is called an ontological basis for ethics the reality is this way and therefore you behave in this way i mean practically what does that mean we say in how do you understand ethics so practically what advaita vedanta would say whatever takes you god word whatever takes you towards enlightenment is ethical whatever takes you away from enlightenment from god is unethical of course to work it out in detail would require so many things anyway that was a very interesting class so he has his own views i mean one professor was saying that see would you say isn't professor amateusen is very learned in indian philosophy also he is but what i found was his learning is basically the learning of an oxford dawn and a 19th century british indologist looking at indian culture and heritage from a distance it's not that he means badly i mean i had a few discussions with him also but if you talk to him personally you immediately get the impression of um of a um oxbridge gentleman very courteous i mean when i went to meet him at this age you know it's very difficult for him to stand and move around he immediately got up shook hands uh when he sat and talked for a while but his whole objection is is of a of a cambridge ethicist i mean somebody from 1960s or 70s oxford cambridge school of ethics you know from from that um what you call ordinary language philosophy that's how he analyzes it so an example would be he mentions bhagavad-gita for example in the class he said see in the first chapter of the gita arjuna in the class in harvard he mentioned arjuna had so many objections to the war and krishna of course dismissed them and taught the gita and finally arjuna to fight the war but if you go through to the end of the mahabharata you will see what arjuna said was right so i support arjuna about this was saying he was right and that the word is very bad and this is the result and that was the result but that's missing the entire point of the gita the point of the gita is to attain enlightenment which is something of course professor saint does not believe in okay we'll leave it at that um are there any more there's one more question yes yes another unmanifest form yeah another go ahead you don't have to become manifest was saying but now like i was like revisiting it uh some time back and i found that like the way that they refer in like it is like very similar to the ultimate reality that nikki vidanta talks about it is true and no doubt um only thing is in doubt aching you will not find this kind of a philosophical logical structure foundation what you find here it is argued out and step by step you are taken to it and shown this and possible objections to it also are dealt with whereas the dow aging is very intuitive it's poetic intuitive mystical it tells you about the same reality but it just points it out to you and in sort of enigmatic language sometimes which you are supposed to grasp yes but it's definitely very profound i don't have any serious study of it but to what extent i have seen in fact um at the harvard philosophical philosophy department in emerson hall i met this scholar from china from uh he's come from beijing um chow singh he's very interested in vedanta and he's doing a comparative study of of dao of taoism and advaita vedanta so that's what he was working on and he's so interested he has translated swami vivekananda's raja yoga and was published in mandarin in china this year um so yeah there is a it's just i feel it's the same truth yeah all right yes thank you on that uh note let me do the shanti mantra we have gone over time again as usual take care may the lord bless all of you and be safe be safe yes take care