Video 57

58. Mandukya Upanishad | Chapter 4 Mantra 14-20

all right just a minute uh unmute yes can everybody hear me yes all right [Music] is [Music] he all right so we were studying the fourth and last chapter of the mandukya karika uh in the this final chapter called allah is taking on several other philosophies now why is he doing that why is he picking a fight with all these other philosophers the reason is that in the previous chapter in advaitha prakaranam he has made a very remarkable claim stunning claim that this universe which we are looking at he is saying it has not originated at all non-origination ayat that's the one uh hallmark standard feature of uh gauravada's advaita vedanta he says that this universe has not originated at all now this puts him at odds with every other philosopher in in his time even down till today because all of them say that there is this universe and once you say that the universe is there it seems very obvious you must you have to explain it how did it come explanation basically means giving a cause explanation is answering the question why and why basically means that you have to give a cause the answer to the question why is usually a cause we say if somebody asks why our answer usually begins with because you know why is the grass wet because it rained or because the sprinklers went off so a cause why is this universe there how does this universe come about this is a standard question all through the ages and all the philosophers uh schools of thought during gaurav padas time and down to our time try to explain this and gaurav padha has to show that they are all wrong because according to him see that because again uh because according to him the these schools uh they they are wrong because they do not um what they are trying to explain does not exist the universe itself did not uh originate that's that's gorda brothers point of view so he has to show that they are wrong and remember how does he do that his way is is rather unique because he takes up the arguments of those philosophers and shows that they cancel each other out um mutually and so they um he does not have to show them that they are wrong individually they cancel each other out mutually and godopath's claim is so the end result is his position non-origination of the universe ajativada that is that is the outcome the logical implication so already he has shown that uh or at least he has attacked the two major schools of causality two major schools of philosophy in ancient india the niya vaishishika school and the sankhya school each has its own theory of causality the assad kardiavada and the satga which we saw in the last few classes and governor padha has refuted them or he has used their mutual refutations to good effect today we will go on to verse number um 14 verse number 14 uh there so from verse number 14 onwards for about the next 10 verses or so uh for the next 10 verses gowda pada will take up a major strand of indian thought karma karma is so central to indian thought not just vedanta but all these schools of hindu philosophy nyaya vaisheshika sankhya yoga mimabs especially but also the non-hindu schools the buddhists all schools of buddhism all schools of jainism down to say for example sikhism all schools of indian thought accept karma and gorapada smashes the entire idea the rationale behind karma he holds karma to be illogical unreasonable and he will proceed to show that so and this it's a it's a it's shocking because in vedanta you learn about karma in vedanta and here is god father the advaithin non-dualist who is going to show that that ultimately karma does not stand it's illogical unreasonable and has to be abundant so this is what's going to happen now karma is so pervasive in indian thought swami vivekananda when he gave a talk on the common basis of hinduism so one of the things he said which is common to all schools of hinduism is karma his belief in in karma not only is it common to all the different schools of hinduism so much difference between the different schools of hinduism vast spectrum of thought but they all hold on to this karma and reincarnation and karma and reincarnation are closely tied together so birth rebirth cycle of birth and death all filled by powered by karma and not only all across hinduism but also other schools of heart for example something like buddhism which is so vastly different from um most schools of hinduism so buddhists don't believe in god buddhists don't even believe in a permanent soul but they did all schools of buddhism without exception believed in karma they have their own theory of karma each of these schools has a has its own brand its own flavor of the karma karma theory the giants have a very developed theory of karma so all of them even the buddhists who do not believe in god they do not believe in a permanent soul but they hold on to karma and reincarnation that's there so this is what god upon is going to smash in the next few verses is going to show that it doesn't work before i go into the verses the verses themselves are the the sanskrit is little old and gaurav paradise argument is a little um i would say it's it's sort of wandering all over the place it's good to put all the arguments together and give a concise statement of what's going to happen before we go into the verses so i'll just put it together the way i will explain it now is not uh in the same sequence as gaurav padha does it um what will happen in the verses but it's easier to understand the way i will put it now just sequence i'll just put together the basic idea of karma and godhapath's argument against it so what is the idea of this law of karma what what is it that in general people and especially in vedanta in in hindu schools what do we believe in and why is god a father against it so it here goes the law of karma even i have given little talks about it sometimes the law of karma and god of others has objections to all of that so what is this uh law of of uh karma basically it is causality cause and effect something leading to something else um the idea is that if we consciously do what we know to be good um in a very general sense if we do dharma what what we know to be right morally ethically right if we consciously do that then that leads to merit merit the sanskrit word is punyam and that merit gives rise to uh pleasant experiences happy experiences later on in in lives to come those happy experiences are called in sanskrit sukha so the chain is if you do dharma the result result will be punya and that punya will fructify give rise to sukha dharma punya sukha in english moral action merit pleasant results a good life pleasant life your wishes will be fulfilled the opposite also holds consciously done immoral action adharma unethical action leads to papa papa is demerit or sin and that results in in future lives to come suffering dukkha so the chain is adharma papa dukkha so this is in some the whole idea of of karma karma is action the word karma literally means action and also the result of action karma fella is also meant by karma when we say it is my karma what we mean is not that it's my action it's the result of my past actions or why am i suffering oh it's my karma or when we say you're in america also now the word has become popular it is good karma do this it's good karma which what what it means is it'll lead to uh punyam the merit and sukha it will give rise to good things for you in future in life so the word karma has double meaning the action itself and the result of that action the result of that action can be merit or demerit and the result of that merit or demerit will be pleasant or unpleasant things in this or next life to come swami vivekananda put it in brief in his poem um good good bad bad and none escaped the law but but whosoever wears a form wears the chain too so good means good action dharma and the result is sukha pleasant results so dharma leads to sukha good good bad bad action immoral unethical action adharma leading to bad means suffering and none escape the law so this is the law in which we all sentient beings are bound and then he says whoever wears a form wears the chain too farm where's the form means we the formless atman we have a form body mind this this body mind and this body mind is a chain what does it mean it's produced by our past karma so what happens is as we go from lifetime to lifetime when one body dies the next body is born because of my particular past karma and that past karma results in this body my parents my health my success in things which will major events in my life all those are determined or predetermined by my past karma so this is a general idea so and it's a big idea in indian sort of and it's very interesting that nobody really doubts it it's taken axiomatically in indian thought and well it might be because it's based on causality cause and effect which is basically what we mean by rationality if you think about logic or rationality or reason um it's basically causality cause and effect okay what could god possibly have against it a lot as it turns out he says so the basic idea is karma gives rise to this body and with this body which means also the senses and the mind which is active in this body body mind complex with this body mind complex i act in this world act and react things happen to me because of my past karma and i react to them and i do good things bad things and this sets up good and bad karma that is papa punya for future results now he asks the question first he asked the question what is first we might reasonably ask what what comes first body or karma and if the answer is karma it is karma which was existing earlier and produced this body but then immediately he asks gaurupadhi's question is if karma was there earlier what produced that karma because karma is produced by body you have a body and you act in this world and therefore produce karma so how did that karma come immediately the opponent sort of back pedals and says no no there was a body and you existed in another body and then you did that karma the question is immediately the question will be how did that body come then how did that body come was there karma before that the opponent tries another track he says look karma produces the body that means a birth and this body and you do karma with this body and that produces more karma and so on so let's say karma and body they me their cause and effect they mutually produce each other karma produces body body produces karma that's what i mean and he says that's not possible because cause and effect to be a cause it has to be precedent it has to exist before the effect if they if it if the karma produce the body that body cannot produce the karma because the body did not exist to produce that karma to produce something you must exist before it cause an effect the cause must exist before the effect if you are saying that karma produce the body and body produced the karma then the body has to exist before the karma but that's not possible they cannot mutually produce each other because causation is sequential the cause must exist before the effect is this okay this this um yeah then the opponent says no no no no what i mean is um let both be produced simultaneously karma and body are both produced together and gurapatha says we will see those verses that won't work either karma if there are simultaneous there will be no relationship between them yeah to have a relationship of cause and effect the cause must exist before the effect if the two are together he will say like the two horns of a cow the one on the left and one on the right shankaracharya is one on the left and one on the right how will one produce the other they are both sort of simultaneous so simultaneous cause and effect simultaneous body and mind a simultaneous karma and body cannot be related as cause and effect that relation won't exist unless one precedes the other then the opponent says see none of this is really the theory of karma which is hell which is propounded by the dualistic schools of hinduism or even buddhism we are just building up to the final theory which is actually what godupath is going to attack but we're just sort of you can see we are making the theory more and more sophisticated no no it's not mutual it's not simultaneous you know simultaneously you might say some some schools they say something like simultaneous because they say how about we say god started up the whole thing like your dad might give you a shop and some money to go with it and then you start your business so so if you ask how did this business start it came from my father my father gave me the shop the body and some money karma and then i started the business can't we say god gave us the body and karma he started us off but then if god gave us the body and karma it means that he gave different bodies and different karma to different sentient beings then good and bad will be god's responsibility god will become partial karma will belong to god then and that is something no no religion will be willing to accept that god is partial that means god becomes responsible for evil [Music] so that will not work it's not simultaneous then the opponent says look you're just quibbling over words what i want to say is that it's a chain karma produces the body the body produces more karma and that that new karma produces a future body and that future body you will do more karma and that will produce future karma and so on it goes it's a chain karma leading to body body leading to karma body means a new birth leading to new karma karma leading to new body and so on it's a chain won't work god father asks what is at the beginning of the chain a body or karma what is the first link in the chain and we'll be back to the same old problem if you say it's karma how did that karma come what body was there if you say no it was a body then how did that how was that body produced because you say all bodies are produced by karma so chain will not work because there's a problem of beginning the first link of the chain and you can't answer that now comes the final form of the law of karma which is what actually the dualistic schools in hinduism they propound and that final form is it's a beginningless chain it's not that karma was at the beginning or body was at the beginning nor are they simultaneous nor are they mutually producing each other nor is it just a chain but it's a beginningless chain ana karma prabha so there is no beginning to this chain from infinite time um it was it was going on beginninglessly this chain of karma is proceeding now mr gorda father do you have any problem is this all right or are you going to pester us with more more uh questions gaurav pada says that sounds interesting let's take a look at what you just said beginningless chain of karma so body and karma chain and anadi beginningless beginningless body karma chain this is what you are saying yes this is what we want to say and god is in charge of all of it some schools will say some schools say that there is no god but all these schools sankhya naya or even the non-hindu schools the jainas the buddhists they all agree something like this is going on a beginningless chain of karma god now look at the words you have used beginningless anadi body karma chain which one of this this these three body karma chain is beginningless you saying beginningless qualifies body karma chain is it a beginningless body impossible is it a beginningless karma impossible is it a beginningless chain said yeah that's what i mean but a chain cannot exist without the body or the karma chain is just a concept the links are made of karma and the body what is beginningless there so uh this is the general attack that goes sets up on karma what is happening here you see when you say this um when god says is we we are puzzled doesn't vedanta itself teach karma that there is a cause and good karma bad karma all of this doesn't belong to teach isn't it isn't there karma yoga for example a big part of vedanta teaching so what is god father denying here why is he against all of this what god is saying is that there is no reality called karma it's like if you watch a harry potter movie or a book read a harry potter book and you say why did poor harry potter suffer so much and if the answer is because of his past karma well that's not really true what is true the real answer is there is no harry potter there is these things did not happen and the sufferings of harry potter also did not happen it's fiction it's a novel or it's a cinema it appears if you see a cinema you all the events are seen you can actually see harry potter all of those things are seen but you are also aware none of this is true so the explanation that it is all because of harry potter's past life karma is not true because it did not happen there is no origination of any entity called harry potter there is no origination of any sub real suffering of an entity called harry potter and so it requires no explanation there is no ah real causation called karma which will explain harry potter's suffering this is what god or father wants to say what about false karma karma as an appearance that god or father has no objection to shankaracharya will bring that forward to explain see we have a world which we experience now it may be a false word that's what god of father wants to say there is no real origination of this world but if you persist and say we still experience it and then if to explain this apparent experience which it does not exist and yet we experience it for that if you want to say that there is karma let's take a look let's take an um apparent explanation for an apparent phenomenon we are not saying that karma is ultimately real it is part of maya because of maya there is desire avidya means ignorance ignorance of a real nature because we are ignorant of our real nature we see this body and mind appearing products of maya and we get identified with it we feel incomplete a purnum and we strive for completion where within the world of appearance which is never possible because what is complete our real nature which we are unaware of and when we strive for completion in this world of maya by desire by trying to fulfill desires that that is the desire is kaaba it's born of lack of fulfillment a purnum incompleteness when we try to complete ourselves try to get fulfillment through karma um the cycle of birth and death starts if you want to say that at this apparent level at the level of maya there is karma godda father will not have any objection he's not talking about that that's what actually in advaita vedanta when you talk about karma let us remember all this the idea of karma in advaita vedante is what is called the harika level the transactional level the level of appearance level of harry potter movie at that level advaita accepts karma if you accept the world then you want an explanation then advaita will give you a provisional explanation the provisional explanation is karma how is it different from all the other schools for all the other schools karma is real the world is real and karma is a real explanation so what is gauravada's final arguments against this you know the final form the beginningless chain of karma he says it does not stand not only that that grammatical argument you might not be convinced by that beginningless chain so beginningless what is beginningless body is beginning less karma is beginning less or chain is beginning less that argument we can set aside but there is a more powerful argument which godopathy gives if you say that there is real karmaint it is beginningless is it endless is it endless the chain karma karma leading to body body leading to karma and life after life after life is it endless if you say it's endless then there is no moksha no mukti no liberation possible so we might as well leave this class why did you leave it till the fourth chapter of the manduka to say such things we could have stopped the class from the very beginning no it has an end it has an end if you say it has an end god up other will say even more serious problem serious problem though he does not discuss this here elsewhere the serious problem is this that i have karma and somehow by my spiritual practices vedanta or by the grace of god finally karma is at an end karma is over this is my last life and now i'm going to be free after this point freedom starts moksha starts till this point bondage samsara karma from this point onwards moksha will start if you say like that and that's how most of the dualistic schools imagine moksha to be liberation to be that we are in bondage really and we really will get freedom by the grace of god if that's what you are saying you are in for serious trouble because a moksha which begins which is produced which originates will come to an end it is quite possible that anything that is born will die you know jaatasiya drovo mertyu krishna says in the bhagavad-gita that which is born is bound to die that which is produced is bound to be destroyed that which is created will come to an end if moksha comes to an end what is the point how is moksha any better than samsara do you see the the problem that if we are really bound by karma this really karma and we are bound by karma and we are going through a chain of birth and death and one day karma will if it does not come to end that's the end of all spirituality then you just there's no escape but if it does come to an end it is real but it will really come to an end and we will get a real moksha which will start after karma comes to an end then that is also illogical the moksha which starts will it also end it's quite possible if that moksha was not there earlier there is quite possible that one day it will not be there again what is illogical about it you might ask then what do you know non-dualists advaitins what does god father say he is also talking about moksha isn't it that uh after realizing your turiyah you will get moksha isn't that what godhapath is saying isn't that what manduk is saying the same problem will apply to you you are in bondage after you realize that i am the thorium i am brahmana once you realize that if you attend sufficient number of mandukya upanishad classes then you will get enlightenment and then you will be free same problem will be there your freedom is also subject to this coming and going gaura path says no no no the tourium the very nature of tourium is freedom tourium is not bound the atman brahman is never bound by karma because karma never existed so atman or brahman is ever free what gyan or knowledge what the manduka class will do is introduce you to this fact of your ever free nature moksha is ever established in advaita vedanta moksha is not gained you are already free that's the very nature of the atman in fact swami vivekananda says this again and again in a lecture which i will talk about this sunday there is a lecture he gave in london called freedom freedom of the soul so there he says freedom of the soul is not to be gained it's it's our very nature because the option that freedom is to be gained leads to illogic logical problems that freedom which is gained can be lost if it was truly ever lost and can again be lost so what is lost by argana here is the principle what is lost by ignorance is never really lost what is gained by knowledge was already there what is gained by knowledge was already there you just didn't know it what is lost by ignorance was never really lost so for example if i'm looking for my pen and i i have it in my pocket but i don't know it i'm looking for it oh my i say my pen is lost but it's because of ignorance with when it's already it's still there it's already in the pocket so when i say it's lost even at that point it's not really lost it's just lost by ignorance i don't know and when i see it oh i got my pen did i really get it no it was already there i just knew i just came to the knowledge that here is the pen similarly moksha is not lost moksha is not gained you just we are just under the delusion that we are in moksha in in bondage and we get the knowledge that we are not in bondage and the ever existing moksha which is the very nature of thoria of our atman is revealed to us um i'll take the questions before we go on um yes so so the moksha moksha is the very nature of of the self it is not born it is not another way of saying this a philosophical way of saying this is the self is never caught in cause and effect causality is of the nature of bondage and what god if you see it philosophically what he is doing is the self is free of causality the self is the only reality and it's free of causality that's what he is trying to show in this chapter remember that verse i think in the second chapter i mentioned i called it a i gave a talk on it the ultimate truth there's nobody in bondage nobody doing sadhana to get out of bondage there is no uh bondage there is no freedom there is nobody who is there is no one who is free what does it mean it means and then he says this is the ultimate truth it's exactly what he's trying to show now it's not that there is a real bondage and then somebody really does spiritual practice and then somebody really gets a new thing called moksha no but does that mean moksha is not there it is there it is the only reality that's always what has always been there okay so this is his basic attack on karma i can see shashank so you kind of touched upon the actual question that i had so where he talks about dismissing the sadhana required for moksha sadhana or removal of aknara so if he does not even recognize that there is a need to obtain moksha because it was never lost then obviously then there is no need for sadhana also yes that the release of cannot be denied so what is the position that he gives to sadhana right that's why remember this is the highest advaita let us say that the beyond this there is only silence or beyond this at the most you can say there is only ashtavakra beyond which there is only silence so um this is the view from the from the everest and it's an uncomfortable and scary view but one must be very careful if you're standing on the tip of mount everest there's always every chance of tumbling to your doom so it is not that he is against sadhana he himself will mention he has mentioned it in the second and third chapters also at the end the need for uh morals meditation things like that so in governor padre's view what is the problem then the problem is ignorance the delusion that we are not free then what what can sadhana be spiritual practice what can spiritual practice do spiritual practice get this spiritual practice is only for removing the delusion that you are not free here one has to be honest do you have you understood what god apart is trying to say yes i have understood it so do you think you are free of delusion if you can say honestly to yourself yes then all right then the question of spiritual practice does not arise for you at all if you you are actually already a jivan mukta then you are you have moksha you are your very nature is moksha but if you say that i get it but i'm beset with so many problems at moment to moment i get caught up in identification with body mind and i react to the world as body mind as a person i feel that the world is real and i react to it as such i do i do feel that there's a difference between waking and dreaming i consider the waking to be much more real than the dreaming and i react like that as an individual to other individuals all of these are signs that delusion again is still there so ignorance which is in the mind is removed by knowledge which is in the mind even from from the turia point of view even knowledge is also not important that means it's advaithic knowledge because does turia need advaithic knowledge does turia need a lesson in a mando kakarika no from the turia perspective even the knowledge is also not necessary but what when is the knowledge necessary when i complain i have ignorance then the prescription will be knowledge then when i complain i am getting this knowledge i have been attending so many of your classes but still i have got ignorance it's not working i have so many problems then the problem is mind is not able to get that knowledge and they will be able to absorb that knowledge so the that scattered mind the soul the southern effort for curing that is meditation then when you complain i try meditation but i feel sleepy or i feel distracted i feel restless then for that impure mind the sadhana is karma yoga so karma yoga purifies the impure mind with the pure mind when you meditate the distractions are removed and it's a focused and concentrated mind with a pure and focused mind when we take up this sadhana of gyana yoga then the knowledge flashes me i am brahman or i am the turia and it becomes absolutely clear ignorance is removed all this is in the mind all this is in the mind today has nothing to do with it except that of course it reveals all of it and gives existence to it once this is done you say that yes i don't need sadhana i am brahmana what sadhana do i need at that stage you will be able to sing like shankaracharya nadharmanachar tanaka namok look he says no moksha i don't need moksha also because as chidananda rupa shivoham has bliss existence consciousness and of the nature of shiva does shiva need moksha no your very nature because its very nature is moksha at that level no more sadhana is necessary the very word sadhana is a means to attain what saddam the goal if you have a goal to attain that something is remaining to be attained then sadhana will help what is my goal purity of mind then karma yoga is the sadhana there is really impurity and there will be attained purity what is my goal concentration of mind focus of mind there is really scattered restless mind and there will really be a concentrated focused mind now what is my goal i want to realize that i am thorium so with that mind ready for this knowledge when i go through this i realize i'm thorium and then i realized that it was always this thorium this impure mind world concentration all of these were part of the maya the delusion which i was under it takes a long time to say these things when it happens it's one instant this way or that way but before that the purification of mind and concentration of mind it's a long long process yeah so it's important to get this idea of sadhana very clear because i don't want to do any sadhana anymore the answer will be that sadhana is meant for giving you something are you sure that you don't want anything anymore you don't want a pure is you don't want a pure mind no you don't want a focused mind you don't want enlightenment we say no i want enlightenment then you need knowledge knowledge is not working then you need concentration can't focus then you need purity and for all of these southerners necessary yes um peter fell i see in the in the chat there's an important remark by from peter is isn't gordo pad's refutation of karma restatement of the early buddhist madhyamaka reputation correct correct so it's not just gowdapada not just advaita vedanta but certain schools of buddhism in its final development who say that karma is to be accepted at a transactional level but at the ultimate level there is no karma karma is also shunya empty the madhyamaka buddhism which is the core philosophy of nagarjuna and the core philosophy of tibetan buddhism they also reject karma the argument is little different from god upon this argument but both of them unequivocally without any ambiguity the both the madhyamaka buddhist and the advaita vedantins reject karma restatement of their rejection quite possibly because there's no doubt that a lot of technique and conclusions were taken by gaurav padha were absorbed by gaurupadha from the buddhist philosophers in fact this is one of the things that i was studying intensely at uh last fall at harvard divinity school so there was this course called indo-tibetan madhyamaka buddhism so this nagarjuna's buddhism madhyamaka buddhism how it developed in india for nearly 800 900 years thousand years and then it went to tibet and then again for nearly 800 or 900 years it developed there so this this period of nearly 2000 years of literature first in sanskrit then in tibetan all translated into incomprehensible english so that's what we were studying uh there but but fascinating and the professor has spent his entire life studying this indo-tibetan madhyamaka and he says you know when you take a course there the professors will advertise or push their courses because it's a competitive market i mean the students are free to take this course or not take it take something else so the professor said to us in the first class that uh madhyamaka is well it's it's so great that once you start doing madhyamaka why would you want to do anything else at all so he really loves that subject but yes it's not that all buddhists accept karma to be real madhyamaka buddhists and tibetan buddhists take karma to be empty at the level of ultimate truth so they say that there are two levels of truth paramarthikam and samriti what in sanskrit is in advaita vedant is called vevaharika transactional there they call it a relative truth samriti satyam the the tibetan buddhists or the madhyamaka buddhists and the ultimate truth taught by the buddha is called paramarthika and the buddha taught two truths so the ultimate truth is paramartica satyam whatever it is so why not go straight there exactly like what godupath is saying nagarjuna before godupath about 500 years before god or father he said without resorting to thee without resorting to the samrita satyam no one attains to the paramartika satyam without taking the help of the relative truth you can never realize the ultimate truth sambriti without resorting to the relative truth nobody ever realizes the ultimate truth therefore this relative truth including sadhana spiritual practices including accepting that i have delusion i have a scattered mind i have an impure mind and i want enlightenment all these things we have to accept and go through the process till one gets it yeah thorn two removal well welcome to rick we have uh rick archer of buddha at the gas pump fame so he has joined us it takes a sound to remove a thorn sri ramakrishna uses this example again and again that when a thorn has pricked your flesh what do you do you take another thorn and you remove it you say no i call 911. it won't help nowadays 911 is not attending to you it's only corona virus patients here in new york so uh you have to take another thorn and remove the sound from your flesh now will you leave the second thorn in your flesh of course not you'll throw that away once the task is done like that what is the baba harika abhijit asking abhijit do you want to clarify that is this this world we are existing in the difference between nowhere known and the instrument of knowledge subject object this world of diversity you just said that one has to attend before the paramount picture no one has to take resort to the vivaric so right now yeah resort means uh samrittim anarchy uh ashrae means taking refugin and nagarjuna's language is very very beautiful he says you take refuge in the transactional truth or the relative truth what is refuge buddha sharanam gachami i take refuge in the buddha sangam sharinam gotcha i take refuge in the sangha and the teachings especially so we take refuge in one local although it's all at the level of transactional reality yeah um somebody else is asking a question there's a question from would be merging into the ishtar the god and if it is that merging then at that when one merges into the ishtar doesn't one almost stop become the ishtar so i mean isn't that quite similar to even what we follow in advaita where you know we the self is really yeah um do i see krishna behind you yes yes i love him yeah so krishna is looking disapprovingly at reikha what is she doing listening to all this atheistic stuff no it's quite different actually the moksha in um in the dualistic paths moksha is not our real nature it's not that we are actually already free and it's some kind of delusion is there and then we have to overcome the delusion that's it no no no you're really in bondage and what is the nature of that bondage karma this is exactly what god is attacking here and by the grace of the one right behind you by that grace we are freed of the bondage of karma karma pasha the rope of karma the lord frees us and being free in most dualistic schools the difference between you and god will still remain and it's good because you can enjoy the beauty and and the joy of being in the presence of god so five types of moksha will be spoken about of mukti is spoken about in vaishnava texts so there is alok here you go to vaikunta the abode of vishnu and remain with vishnu or goloka their word of krishna and remain with krishna then sami not only you go there but you remain close to the lord sami means closeness proximity to the lord still you are different and the lord is different um then there is even closer degrees of um proximity so there is sayudya then there is that is also sarupya so these things you become a part of you know someone say you become an ornament on the body of the lord so you can see it's a very dualistic way of thinking and saying means like when you even in in dualistic thought when you say i'm one with the lord it's a kind of meditation in the sense you lose all sense of individual distinction distinction and only the lord remains in all the magnificence of the lord you just don't think about yourself at all that's a kind of merging it's um like a drop falling in the ocean and being indistinguishable from the ocean isn't that what we are talking about in advaita not at all not at all there is no merging not that i am different from turiya now more advaita classes i'm attending i've now come to the fourth chapter almost totally merged now um earlier i was a little bit merged into real as we come close to the end of the manduk upanishad getting more and more merged no you are the theory see if you had forgotten that you are rekhaji i mean suppose you are dreaming and dreaming of something else and you wake up and you realize oh i am rekha did you merge in the reality called reika no you wear reika all the time even when you thought you were not there's nothing more to it than that similarly here you are the theory right now also you don't merge in the theory though the language of merging is sometimes used in advaithic text also language of merging is used don't take it as real when you realize that it's not a rope it's not a snake it's a rope does the snake merge in the rope only figuratively not really it was never there's no snake to merge in a rope so remember that's why i always want to say you know what you are saying would be a good question in the gospel of sriram krishna class would be a good question in the bhagavad-gita class for example but remember this is super specialized mandukiya is super specialized if you want to talk about the beauties of the valleys of kashmir or other places in india but you're standing on the top of everest you see where is everything it's just ice and rock and snow so the view from here is the highest possible view there is story and only theory here so and it's worthwhile to see that view at least even if that is not my path i always say if you like this approach very good very good nothing better but if your primarily you feel my approach is bhakti then follow then listen to this understand it and bracket it off okay so this is what god of other says but you if you try to match it and mix it with what krishna is saying in the gita srinam krishna in the gospel it will be problematic because most of what is said in the gita or in the gospel which is you know the gospel of the gita somebody pointed out in an earlier class on in mandukka that they are vast texts in the gospel of sri ramakrishna in the bhagavad-gita multiple paths are there there is devotion there is meditation there's morals and ethics there's karma yoga and there's also knowledge this this advaithic idea is there remember they are not all the same path the paths are different there's no doubt about it it lead to the same reality yes but when it leads to the same reality the perspective that god upadha has on it is different from the perspective that a devotee say caitanya mahaprabhu might have on it because the path itself will give you a particular lens to view it in yeah so it will be very difficult if you try to bring those things here what will happen is god father will reject 90 percent of that karma devotion duality all of that bhakti all of that is simply he will say who will be devoted to whom who will merge with whom all of that devotion practice merging um all of that is in the realm of appearance for godhapada you have to see that he is speaking from the heights of turiya thank you who else is there yes [Music] and then when you read about manisha panchakam which is written by same shankaracharya yeah and it starts with somebody who's not recognizing somebody or somebody recognizing somebody as an inferior cast and then trying to um you know kind of create this whole manisha panchakam is this um is do we know what is a timeline chronological event did shankaracharya write the first one or the second one because it kind of is very for me it is hard to believe the same person wrote this no no no uh it's exactly the same thing you know what nirvana shatakam says and what manisha panchakam says exactly the same thing um when nirvan shatakam he says is the highest perspective i have no desire for wealth or pleasure or even for dharma or even for moksha because i am of the nature of consciousness bliss i am the nature of shiva what does he say in manisha panchakam jagras that consciousness which is shining in waking dreaming and deep sleep blazing forth all the time um the same consciousness which is from the from the highest god brahma not brahman brahma mukher brahma from there down to a little tiny end in all human beings animals gods and demons everywhere is one consciousness only and it is jagat sakshi it is the witness of this world jagat sakshini saiwa i am that consciousness nadrishyavastu not an object to that consciousness these objects are like appearances in consciousness they are not even separate if somebody has such a realization let that person be a from a lower caste chandala or be a brahmin whatever they are guru who is my guru manisha mama this is my realization what happened was that from the vehicle level where he was making a distinction brahmin non-brahman this distinction he was making which he must have been used to because of his brahminical background the chandala who was an enlightened person scolded him said what is this distinction your me you're telling me to step aside so what will step aside from what body from body at the level of body your body is also impure it's full of all the same blood flesh plus urine which my body is also full of or are you asking consciousness to step aside chaitanya chaitanya chaitanya are you asking consciousness to step aside from consciousness impossible it's one consciousness then what is going to step aside from what according to your own philosophy and shankaracharya immediately realizes so he's already realized but anyway it's more like a device for teaching us yeah and the message of manisha panchakam message of nirvana sataka are exactly the same yes no i was just wondering the way it started when he didn't recognize the chandelier yeah see the that is what you call the vehicle transactional world in the transactional world all g1 muktas and avataras you will find that is not neat and geometrical always everybody will be in samadhi no that's what makes spiritual life so interesting it makes life itself so interesting if you look at ramayana if you look at mahabharata till today people will find especially hindustic delight and was rama right in doing this to sita what was krishna right in encouraging arjuna to kill karna debatable because in life once once your philosophy comes in contact with life um it's complex so um unless one is con continuously in samadhi once one is in aware of the vebaharika each given book each teacher will be slightly different from the other there will be differences because of their background yeah thank you it would have been problematic if shankaracharya had said and you held on to that no if you had said for example to the chandala that you are whatever it is in my philosophy you don't have to bother about that brahman is brahman but at this level you are canada although he's not even a brahmin because he's already sannyasi i'm from brahmin background and you are from a lower caste and you know you have to step aside from me and this is the meaning of advaitha then i would really doubt whether this person is enlightened or not that's a wrong interpretation an enlightened person will never say such things thank you thank you all right um let us quickly now take a look at the verses um if there are other questions just hold on to that let me read the verses we have not read a single verse yet but actually don't worry we have done quite a bit we have we have the arguments which i presented at the beginning what is the law of karma and what is step by step god of other how he attacks it we will see now this is what he does it's just presented in a lot of not in an organized way that's why i said all this at the beginning all right so verse number 14. i'll just read out the verses and the translations how can beginninglessness be declared for cause and effect by those philosophers according to whom the effect is the origin of the cause and the cause is the origin of the effect so beginningless means remember what is what is being discussed here everybody tries to say that there is one ultimate cause of this universe that actually there is a universe and the universe is actually originated and there is some cause of this universe that's what different philosophers are trying to say whether it's nayaka or sankhya or whoever and god of others against that so he says beginninglessness means one first cause cause which has no beginning itself that means cause which has no cause itself cause without a cause causeless cause how can it be there for those people who say that um karma gives rise to the body and body gives rise to karma that's what is mentioned here for whom the cause is giving rise to the effect and effect is giving rise to the cause this is the discussion which we had the big at the beginning so what is first is it the karma is at the beginning or is is body at the beginning which is which which is first you cannot answer that then number 15. [Music] so just as a father may be born of a son so also may birth be a possibility according to these philosophers who admit that effect is the source of the cause and causes the source of the effect this is that argument which came later on that no they mutually produce each other he says this is ridiculous it's godda father says it's like saying yes father produced a son and now you're saying son also produced the father how is that possible because remember it's not possible because the effect comes after the cause and if the effect is to produce the cause if the effect is also a cause then it has to come before the cause to produce something you must exist before it how can the effect produce the cause how can the sun produce the father the sun has been produced by the father we understand but the opposite is not possible and he says yet this is what happens when you talk about karma karma leading to body and body leading to karma number 16 [Music] a sequence has to be found out by you you have to tell us what is the sequence in the births of cause and effect for should they originate together there can be no causal relation as between the two horns of a cow so remember this was the option if somebody said no no they are not producing each other just imagine they all started together cause and effect everything started together maybe say let god started i gave the example of a father gave a business to the son um you know the shop is also given plus some amount of money is given and you start off so didn't it could be that god gave us a body and also some karma and we start up the business of samsara no that's also not possible then you will have to uh two problems will be there one is then god will be responsible for all the partialities and everything here he does not talk about god he says if they are if they start together then there can be no relation of cause and effect and after all isn't it your own theory of karma that karma produces the body and body produces karma this cause and effect relationship is what you are trying to tell me and now you are saying both start together and how is there cause and effect then number 17. so these are things we have discussed just the sanskrit is little archaic so it if you go through it verse by verse like this then it becomes confusing number 17 [Music] so the cause has to come out of an effect you can't recognize such as such a cause because um the effect cannot produce the cause effect did not exist before the cause how can such a cause which is not established as such produce an a producer result so this is the illogicality of law of karma see when we are saying cause and effect think in your mind karma and body dharma and body he is using the terms means cause or it means karma and pala pala means result it means effect it means body now he sums up what is going on pakshaya if the existence of the cause is dependent on the effect think in this way if the existence of karma is dependent on body and the existence of the effect is dependent on the cause existence of the body is dependent on on the karma then which of the two has existence earlier with relation to which the other may emerge so this is the same problem you cannot have a sequence if e one depends on the other and without a sequence there is no causality so what is the net result number 19 he says that you are unable to explain causality or unable to explain law of karma ashakti parikhanam evamata buddha your inability to answer this means it amounts to your ignorance or else there is the falsification of the sequence asserted by you thus indeed is highlighted in every way the absence of origination by the learned ones so you see what is meant by this verse ashakti parijanam either you are unable to explain karma as we have seen this whole argument every at every step there is a illogical you are unable to explain it to our satisfaction how does karma work how did it start uh which is first which is next what do you mean by beginninglessness none of this you are able to explain and if you try to explain karamakopov the word kramako koppa means anger krama means sequence so it's not that the sequence is angry it just means there is illogicality or there is inconsistency of sequence grammar means sequence so as was explained earlier you cannot justify the sequence cause must always come before effect and yet ah you cannot show that so either you keep quiet ashakthi you are unable to explain in which case you are ignorant if you open your mouth to explain it you are falling into illogical which is inconsistencies you can karama copper chroma copper means inconsistency or um the illogicality of sequence so either either you say something and then you you're in trouble open your mouth and reveal your foolishness or keep quiet and accept that you are unable to explain karma evam so in in all ways by all these buddha by the moment he uses these words immediately modern scholars will jump and say see buddha he used the word buddha so he must be a buddhist but in this case um buddha here shankaracharya explains the vadivi by the debaters by the philosophers which philosophers sanchez the various dualistic schools who talk about karma so these are the buddhas the the um so basically his it might be slightly sarcastic sarcastic here buddha means buddha actually for godhapada by the these learned shankaracharya comments pandit by the great pandits by the great scholars and debaters who have these positions on karma they are unable to explain so this is verse number 19 20 let me just do that and we will stop here and i will take some more questions 20 is a common sense thing you know like suppose this person is talking about karma they make one last attempt look it's not difficult why are you making such a big fuss of this bijan kuravata let me read the verse yes what is known by the illustration of the seed and sprout is ever on an equal footing with the unproved major term for an illustration that is as unproved as the major term is not applied for establishing the relationship of the major term with the minor term now you might think what's going on here uh it's very simple actually uh it just means that the opponent comes up with this example look it's all very simple why are you making such a big fuss like it's like a seed and a sprout this is seed and it sprouts in a sapling i remember when we used to do biology classes as kids we we had to germinate we had to do a project on the germination of the seed and we have to germinate a seed i think we had to keep it in cloth and then the the sapling would come out seedling then we have to take it to class and show it to the teacher and draw it and all those things so just imagine that example seed produces the plant and plant produces the seed and the seed produces the plant and this goes on this chain is there in the world and just use that example the world karma is like that karma is like the seed and our birth body mind is like the plant and that leads to further seed which leads to further body and mind and this is samsara this is what we are going through the example of the seed and the sprout seed and plant is used to explain karma here godda father says no won't do why because all the objections which i said sadhya sama what satya means what you want to prove what do you want to prove karma law of karma what are you using seed and plant example whatever is the problem with the law of karma which i have pointed out till now all those problems are there with your example which is first seed or plant you can't say the same problem is seed first you can't say that where did the seed come from is plant first you can't say where did the plant come from are seed and plant simultaneous impossible then how can seed produce the plant see both seed and plant are there then how can one produce the other if you say the other other option mutually producing so it produces plant plant produces seed that it's impossible that same seed cannot produce a plant which will produce the same seed again impossible because the cause has to come before the effect the same things which we discussed earlier then if you say no it is a chain then the same problem will come which is the beginning of the chain seed or plant what is the first link of the chain then you will say it is endless chain then endless chain i will ask that endless what is endless is the seed endless or is the plant endless or is the chain endless same doubts which i had raised about law of karma equally applies to seed and plant because you see what i am attacking here golda patha says is not just your law of karma its causality is itself cause and effect itself is being attacked any example of cause and effect you give will have the same problems so he says an example which has the same faults you cannot use it to prove what you want to prove seed and plant example is the same fault of as law of karma now he is siddha youth you cannot use it yes should we proceed or let's just take a look at what people are thinking everybody getting headache they're looking i am seeing as cows and anion looks like what is going on here all right let's see is there anybody my question is that i have two questions but depending on the time i'll post on the second one the first question that i have is i'm trying to make a difference between appearance and creation now in in the case of appearance if the rope wasn't there the snake won't appear correct is some kind of a cause and effect going on because the rope is there yes so what is the real difference between appearance and creation yes the real difference is is reality ah is there any substantial change in um in in reality the godupathi says substantial change cannot be explained the world transforming its brahman transforming itself into the world that cannot be explained in fact any kind of cause and effect real cause and effect cannot be explained but that does not rule out an appearance maya now maya will you say this maya cause no ma is also not ultimately a cause because maya is not real maya the very word maya means yama that means that which is not ma means not so that which is not is maya in vedanta maya is defined as sadasab not ultimately real not totally unreal not ultimately real because after enlightenment you see there is no no maya nothing to explain but not ultimately unreal also because it causes the or it it it is the reason why we have all these appearances that this world you cannot deny that you are seeing this world if you want why we are seeing this world maya maya is another name for ignorance ignorance is not causation ignorance is not reality there is something so when in the world actually a seed becomes a plant and by mistake you see the rope as a snake the two are not the same in one case we normally apply causation there's a cause and there's an effect something is going on in the other case we just say oh nothing happened it's just a mistake that's what god has wants to say nothing happened it's just a mistake bradley the the um late 19th early 20th century philosopher in cambridge uh oxford cambridge i think he said appearance what appears is not real and the reality never appears so i like that saying so this whole universe appears and according to gaurav it's not real and the reality never appears it's never an object of experience it is the reality underlying all experience that's the second question yes so in approximately you spend a lot of time on causality in karma and all that stuff and there it was explained because space time and causation was part of maya now we're also told that maya's constituents are satya rajan and thomas yes see somehow how is speciality produced from satire and famous yeah so maya because shrapnel rajas and tamas are constituents of maya remember godhapada will have none of it he's not interested we are interested uh because we want to understand this world so one way was the sankhyan cosmology where prakriti is the creator of the world and prakriti is made of saturation so the material of this universe is and what happens is are of ever-changing constituents of prakriti because prakriti is always in like what you might call an unstable equilibrium sometimes it goes into equilibrium and sometimes equilibrium is disturbed so this is all there in sankhya philosophy so their idea is that the original cause prakriti is an unstable equilibrium when it is in equilibrium there is no creation it's just prakriti remaining but when the equilibrium is disturbed uh because of the continuous change of saturation tamas then the entirety of this universe emerges with an imbalance of saturation some things have more satura less rajas and thomas and so on this is how prakriti becomes a cause and according to the sunkens upakri is a cause what kind of cause they they believe in satcaryabada the entire universe pre-existed in prakriti and is now projected out because of the changes in prakriti prakriti changes prakriti parinam all of that advaith actually accepts it except it says prakriti is not real it's like if you say yes yes i accept harry potter suffered so much and all those things happened in harry potter's life all those things i accept only one thing is that harry potter and all the events are false they are all cinema fiction that's what advaitha adds which is not what sang sankhyas janke says that is the reality this is the universe which is going on yes anybody else so those of you have asked the question can lower the hand yeah so swamiji godapada has dismissed the philosophy of yoga and sankya but in advaith vedanta has borrowed the meditation techniques from yoga and borrowed the idea of pure consciousness from samkhya so godapadha has just dismissed certain points of those philosophies only true and accepted others it acts uh god upon the dismisses here causality cause and effect the sankhya and sadhkaryawada god of others dismissed and also the niya asabkariyavada and the other aspects of sankhya which got up other dismisses for example that there are many purusas many pure consciousness so there's only one and the other aspect of sankhya which dismisses is the reality of prakriti the world is real gaurav padha dismisses that in the brahma-sutras there is a statement yoga pratyukta by these dismissal of sankhya philosophy the philosophy of yoga is also dismissed shankaracharya says but though the the philosophy is dismissed the techniques are welcome if at the level of sadhana you want to calm down your mind you have already accepted world is there i have a body my mind is disturbed then very good medicine for you is prescribed by patanjali not patanjali ramdev that is different modern patanjali the patanjali yoga sutras so patanjali yoga sutra prescribes the medicine for the mind and that is no doubt at the only god of other will say that's at the transactional level at the level of appearance you want calm mind you don't want restless mind very good ultimately you want to do you want to know what is the reality come to me if you want to know how to come calm down the mind go to patanjali he is the expert on this the specialist see these yeah did girish want to ask something yes yeah i just want to ask an earlier question differently because i need some clarification and to use your view from everest analogy can you can you climb to the top of everest without requiring the oxygen of meditation or yoga i mean can you can you engage in study and dialectics and argue and debate your way to the realization without requiring the scaffolding if you would yeah it that's a good analogy so the answer would depend on where you are if you are in base camp you need one kind of support you need guides shadpass you need supplies if you are far above just a few steps away from the top you probably need oxygen and if you're at the top you don't need any of it you're already there where you want it to be so sort of roughly if you use that analogy yes remember it's a journey so in that case all of these things are necessary but the analogy also has its limits because remember what god is trying to say says that you are permanently at the top of everest this is the ultimate truth we are trying to show you what it is ultimately because if you in spiritual life or in philosophy you um journey is fine but you would like to know you like to have a statement of what is it that finally you are trying to say um you say this is the lower truth and you understand this now you go little higher now you go like but what is it at the final level tell me as far as possible in language logic philosophy you can you can go just paint for me a picture of what is it that you propound what is your view world view basically so this is godfather's worldview the view from everest yeah thank you anybody else let me do yes you mentioned i just wanted to understand that what does it bring in something additional to what we have been talking about now i mentioned yes oh i said that this is the view from the everest there's only one thing beyond this that is ashtavakra and beyond ashtavakra only silence so now let's see what is remaining in ashtavakra nothing and ashtavakra what you get is a statement of this truth and that's it only a statement of the truth a hundred times again and again and again in 18 chapters going on and again repeating the same thing again and again at least in godhapada you get argument though very sophisticated and subtle you get arguments ashtavakra there is no argument our ashtavakra is just siddhanta the ultimate conclusion stated over and over again what's the point of that then why do that that's useful for needed asana once you have learned vedanta vedanta once you have gone through all sorts of subtle arguments clarification once it's very clear to you you would like to stay there so ashtavakra keeps you there it's just sort of a luminous statement and restatement of the highest truth again and again and again there is no attempt at any argumentation no attempt at stories no attempted um there are many examples but it is not trying to teach you anything it's just pointing out your real nature continuously somebody called it a grand monotony grand monotony in that case do you have to continuously reaffirm that in the sense that once you are there one doesn't sort of just stay with that knowledge notice that as turya you're always there you don't have to make any effort to stay asturia because that's what you already are but it's the mind which plays tricks the mind will tell you i had it now i have lost it i was clear now i am not so clear yes i am brahman but coronavirus is creating a problem brahman has no problem with already you are back at the level of body and mind that's only when coronavirus can create a problem i am brahmana i am turia but i am worried about my green card so now again i am back at the level of body and mind in usa so space time causation server priyananda applying for visa status in u.s there's already body mind you're back back again this thing continuously happens to us because as long as you are not a g1 mukta so a practice of needed dhasana is very good to stay with it nidhi dhyasana is very good before becoming a jeevan mukhta um because you feel you've understood it you're completely convinced yet you feel you're not getting the result of advaita vedanta you should get peace there should be no more complaining i always say if you're enlightened then there's one problem you have lost the right to grumble you have lost the right to complain anymore if you are enlightened there should be no complaint about anything you should be perfectly happy i mean you should be okay with everything ah as long as we don't have that needed hassan is necessary you must stay there and see from how from that view of the everest these problems do not matter you should be able to resolve it in fact every time there is a problem that problem is the occasion for nithyaasana and take the view from the everest and see that the problem is no problem that's before becoming a jeevan mukhtar even after becoming jeevan mukhtar um the enlightened being stays in two states basically from our perspective one is aware of us and interacting with us this is called bhutana yuthana means arising and the other state is samadhistha absorbed in irvikalpa samadhi in the featureless brahman absolute that you would see in the life of sri ramakrishna for example krishna also arjuna asks this question to krishna in the second chapter please tell me the characteristics of this of the jivan mukta the enlightened person who is in samadhi what is he like when he is in samadhi and what is this person like when he is talking walking moving around that is bhutana so that means even in juvenmukta that nijridhasana is still followed totapuri srinama krishna's guru advaita guru was very regular about his meditation the one sriram krishna asked him but you are an enlightened being what are you meditating for you've already realized dhutapuri showed his he had a brass pot which he would carry around as a sannyasi and he said look how shiny it is he said yes but it's shiny because daily brush has to be polished so daily i polish this then it remains shiny otherwise it's still brass but it'll look it'll get a layer you know it'll look dull similarly meditation that means being centered in that that you know stay with that view from the everest every day that keeps the realization fresh even though if you do not do it you still enlightened but a layer of samsara will fall on you sadhus in uttarakhand they use different ways of explaining this even after enlightenment they say that the mongoose fights with the cobra and this is the story they have and the cobra sometimes may be able to bite the mongoose and put its poison in the mongoose what the mongoose does is it runs off into the forest and there's a jadi bhuti they say that some herbs are there which the only the mongoose knows and if you chew on that herb the poison of the cobra goes down it it is mitigated they say that i don't know how true it is so mongoose apparently runs up into the forest and chews that herb and comes back and again fights with with the cobra similarly when you are dealing with maya sometimes the poison of maya will enter into a system bitterness anger grief puzzlement bewilderment frustration it may come into you even if you think you're a ghani so you have to rush off and chew on the the jedi booty the herb of turi of brahman that i am brahman take the view from the everest come back again there's no problem the problem is solved that's one example they give though sri ramakrishna had a nice reply to that he said yes but if the pot is a gold part you don't have to polish it every day all right then let's end the class here we'll take it up in the next class i hope this is is it too much or is it enjoyable i don't know i am having a good time enjoying the journey with god yeah stay with it yeah my idea was let's start at the top mandu kyo panishad manduka let's start there finish that then we will go down from the everest and enjoy the valleys of you know darjeeling and others we will read qatar panisha mundaka panishad all those will be nice enjoyable and you will find it oh it's easy i've already read the mandukka so this is relaxation so we will do those things later on after completing the mandukya om shanteshantanti [Music] please stay safe take care let me see all of you as we leave krishna yes all right all right you