Video 58

59. Mandukya Upanishad | Chapter 4 Mantra 21-24

today shashank is going to be our co-host and as usual he'll keep a lookout for people coming in late to let them in and keep a lookout for your questions and the observations and enable us to have a discussion all right let me start with the pranam the shanti mantra om bhadram karena yamadeva so what's the story so far we have been studying the fourth chapter of the mandu kyokarika which is called the alata shanti prakaranam in this gowdapadha having established the non-duality of the theorem the falsity of of the universe in the earlier chapters now he takes up all these other points of view other philosophies who do not at all agree with non-duality and he refutes them the basic approach is an attack on causality that cause an effect is not real the reality is brahman ethereum which is beyond cause and effect how is that relevant look at how he uses it first he takes up this question about is there a real world or not has does the world exist so has the world been produced is there really creation the question is has world has the world been created and what he does is he takes up the two major theories of creation in indian philosophy those who say the world has been really produced really created and if you remember satgiavada and assad cardiac the origination of a new effect or the origination of a pre-existing effect these are the two theories and he attacks those theories um there is a lot going on behind the scenes so when he's attacking satga actually gorapada is taking on uh niya vaisheshika and the sankhya and yoga philosophies the niya and vaisheshika hold on to the assad karyabada and the sankhya and yoga philosophies hold on to the sadkaryawada so by refuting those those theories of causality he is refuting these philosophies and the whole purpose is to show that the real world has not been produced that's what we saw then uh the story when last time we saw how he takes on another big issue in indian philosophy the law of karma what's the story there uh the story is that we have we have all heard this and i have told you so many times and we have heard this we have read about this this is a basic idea in indian thought that um there is the law of karma if you consciously do what is right dharma the result will be punya which is merit and the result of this merit will be sukha happiness good things pleasant things desirable things happen to you in the world and if one consciously deliberately does bad things adharma the result will be papa demerit and the result of the demerit will be suffering unpleasant things will happen and this itself is the is the ground for uh talking about for holding that there is reincarnation that means there are many births we have existed earlier we we have this body and we are existing in this life when this body dies we'll get another body so karma produces these bodies and with these bodies we do more karma good and bad and by the law of karma there is rebirth and the cycle of birth and rebirth continues this is called samsara and also this is bondage and this is what we are trying to overcome in spiritual life by spiritual practices one day we will be able to come out of this cycle of karma and rebirth maybe by the grace of god in bhakti or whichever way we will be able to come out of it so this is the story we have been told and god or father is having none of it he considers the whole thing to be fictional and so he attacks this theory see even when he's attacking the law of karma notice it's basically an attack on cause and effect on causality because the law of karma is nothing but causality um by our actions cause we generate karma and that gives rise to certain effects in our life certain things happen in our life so effect cause and effect our bodies are effects because they have been produced by the past karma which is the cause and the body becomes a cause for future karma which will produce future bodies so cause and effect and god or father's attack is constant on cause and effect what what does he say he says if you remember last time we discussed very quickly i'll run through it what is the basic uh his objection to the law of karma he says how is this body produced the answer is by past karma but how did that karma come to be so what is first is karma first if you say karma is the cause of everything but you just said we need a body to do karma so that means before that karma there must have been a body because if the opponent says okay we body is first but then how did that body come to be before that body there must be karma the opponent says no body does karma and karma produces the body so that cannot be because cause and effect have to be in sequence if the body is doing karma then the body is the cause and the karma is the effect that karma cannot produce this body let me repeat body produces karma body does karma shari karma then then you cannot say karma produces the body because this karma has come afterwards effect the cause must be before the effect so you must say there is a there is a karma before that body so they cannot be simultaneous that's what i mean they cannot be mutually producing each other that will not work when you say seed produces tree and the tree produces seed you don't mean the same seed one seed produced a tree a plant and then that plant produce other seeds which will produce other plants they don't produce each other um then you might say nobody thinks like this yeah chicken and egg problem rick is saying the same thing nobody thinks like this that's true but when when you're philosophizing you must eliminate every alternative step by step the real law of karma the way it is explained in different indian philosophies that's going to come that's going to come next but we are building up to it another alternative could be suppose the opponent says look god starts you off with karma and body some karma initial karma you know like you are start like the starting a business and your dad or your rich uncle says here is the shop and here is some money now you are on your own so like here is a body here is some karma now you are on your own why why can't you say that god started it all but then did god start all of equally all of them they all all sentient beings are the same karma and the same body that sounds very weird not only does it sound weird it does not explain anything because then how did differences arise if everybody was the same then how would um people react differently and do some do good things some do bad things it's not possible there must have been difference if you say god created people different that's many theistic religions say that so god created people different then god is responsible god is partial ultimately then all our sufferings which are due to bad karma can be traced back to god and some people have seem to have it so good so they are good karma and all ultimately through a beginningless through a link you know a chain of cause and effect it can be traced back to god god becomes partial then that doesn't work because that's that's against the very nature of god god is supposed to be all loving and beneficent and just then the opponent says no no no you're just playing with words what i meant was there's a chain of karma so as rick said chicken and egg problem which came first the answer is it's a chain the egg produces the chicken and chicken produces the egg and that produces another chicken the plant the seed produces the plant the plant produces seeds and those seeds produce other plants you karma produces a body body produces karma karma produces a body and so it's a chain that's what i mean immediately gaurapatha asks so what was at the beginning of the chain was it an egg or a chicken was it a seed or a plant was it a body or karma what was there at the beginning um the opponent finally comes to the the finished form the final form of the law of karma the way it is taught in in indian philosophy whether hinduism or whatever all schools say this it's a chain but a beginningless chain so that takes care of god of others objections you can't ask for a beginning it's a beginning less chain further back the more you go back wherever you stop you will either either find a body or you'll find karma you'll either find a chicken or an egg and if you ask what was before that if the if it's a chicken an egg was before that if it's a plant a seed was before that if it's a body then there was karma before it and that karma had another body before it and so on beginningless you might say that's illogical but anyway that's how it is that's where it stops god of other says that will not do that will not do if you say beginningless then it could be endless generally cities which is beginningless cities also is endless cities so if it is endless then there will be no moksha karma body body karma birth and rebirth cycle will continue this it's called anir moksha prasanga the contingency of no moksha then what are we doing here at all why these vedanta marathons we have vedanta class now and then san diego after this if there is no moksha if there is an endless chain of karma and the opponent says wait wait wait wait there is an end to it there is an end to it so does that satisfy you no beginning and there is an end now that might forgetting the logical or the the you know irrationality which might be involved talking about things which have beginning less but with an end god upon says all right let's accept that let's say the law of karma says karma says that there is no beginning to the chain of karma and bodies and there is an end to it by god's grace by spiritual practice or whatever that also won't do so godda father is merciless so that also will not do why now what is the problem the problem is this you are saying that karma will come to an end by spiritual practice by grace of god or whatever so birth and rebirth will come to an end moksha will begin but if moksha begins then moksha has a beginning that which has a beginning will have an end moksha can end also that moksha which was not there has now originated who is to say that the moksha will not disappear again moksha may very well come to an end also so the law of karma god upon the dismisses it's an appearance it's part of maya it's not real what is real is brahman or turiam which is beyond the law of karma swami reckon to put it very well so simply in his song of the sannyasin he says good good bad bad and none escape the law but whosoever wears a form wears the chain so this is the law of karma then he says but far beyond name and form is atman ever free no thou art that sannyasi bold say um so basically that's the idea in vedanta um you say that but swami vivekananda did not say that the law of karma is false yes but look what he says far beyond name and form is atman ever free atman is ever beyond the law of karma how can it be beyond the law of karma unless the law of karma is an appearance it's maya it's just name and form it's as he said beyond name and form is atma never free the reality is the free atman you are ever free right now ever means i know if somebody objects i know i am ever free i know so i am very kind they said i am ever free that's all right but now how to become free what will you say to such a person if if you sing at one side on one hand you are accepting i am ever free now how being ever free how where how do i become free now of the law of karma you are ever free so that's what god is saying when swami vivekananda says um atman ever free you are the atman which is ever free it implies what god of ada is saying here that the law of karma cannot be real then in that case okay um then let us go on we are done up to verse number 20 the fourth chapter 21. so he just sums up um he just sums up what has gone on his dismissal of the law of karma let's do 21. [Music] what is the english translation i'll read out from swami gambhiranji's translation the ignorance of the precedence and succession is appointed to the beginninglessness itself for if it be a fact that a thing takes birth why is not its cause apprehended what does it mean it's basically a um sort of summing up of what he has been arguing against the law of karma very inability agyanam aparigyanam this inability to understand to conceptualize to rationally explain the law of karma puru beginning and end the earlier and the later the predecessor and successor you are unable to explain it rationally cause and effect what does it point to ajata paridhi pakam what beautiful word paridhi pakamit lights up my philosophy of ajaatha beginninglessness no origination causality is not true because you you cannot logically explain causality what does it mean it means there is no cause and effect there is only one reality which is thorium the atman or brahman otherwise he says if really something is created universe is created we have come into you know we are being born again and again if that is true then why can't you give the cause why can't you describe what is the cause effect link your law and your law of karma it is failing so this is a big big um claim by god of allah as i have said the law of karma and birth and rebirth are something that are that is axiomatic in indian philosophy all schools of hinduism all schools of buddhism all schools of jainism and sikhism all indian philosophies they accept there's so much difference between themselves buddhists do not accept god the buddhists do not accept atma a permanent soul and yet they accept law of karma and this reincarnation birth and ripuner one sadhu said gambhir this is a very profound teaching or profound principle what is the profound principle law of karma and reincarnation punar janma gaura pada is rejecting it swami vivekananda in his lecture the basis of hinduism what is the common hinduism is so diverse what are the common features of hinduism among that one thing he said this reincarnation law of karma and reincarnation this common feature of hinduism so look at the radical nature of godhapath he rejects it not that it is not there at the level of bibaharica reality at the level of maya yes but ultimately not real ultimately only brahman is real success succession before and after here he points to time causality karma birth rebirth all of that notice it depends on time cause and effect there must be time because causes first and effect is next then only you can speak about cause and effect so time is there ah birth and rebirth it's a it's a time phenomenon in temporal phenomenon and what what godhapatha is pointing towards is that even time is an appearance in consciousness time is also not real causality time and space these three are maya they are not real maya is an appearance so karma is causality which which is connected to time and also space so time space causality are appearances not ultimately real ultimately only the thorium is real that's what he is trying to say and he says ajayate paridipakam so this shows the reality of what i was trying to say aja tawada remember his signature philosophy of god of other it is one thing that godopath is known for ajata the philosophy of non-origination then i i know that people have are asking questions but we'll wait a little let me just finish this topic and then i'll go to the questions so ah 22nd before he moves on to the next topic 22nd and 23rd are he continues his attack on causality that there is no real really there is no such thing as cause and effect let's do 20 seconds the translation of this one should be interesting uh 22nd i think whatsoever it may be is born neither of itself nor of something else nor of both together nothing whatsoever is born that already exists does not exist or both exists and does not exist i hope some of you are smiling yeah but it's it's actually pretty simple gaurav says six things here in one verse he says what is causality how is a thing born he says take a simple thing as a pot we all say part is created let forget the universe or birth and death samsara just a pot is it created from itself is part created from pot swatha no sata means from itself so is a part created from something that is absolutely not a part like a cloth i mean in sanskrit why the cloth is used but a ghatta means pot and pata means cloth so gato gata patatwa so it's it's sort of alliterative that's why they say so is a part born of a cloth of course not mixture of itself and something else swatha paratha so gatta and gatapata from the gutter and butter is it born of course not the very idea of a part being born from a part that that is meaningless if already there is a part in what is to be created and a part is born from something absolutely not a part that's also impossible um you know a mango tree cannot come out of an apple seed so something that does not have the potentiality of becoming that that can never produce it and a mixture of pot and something else that's not possible it's contradictory it must be either a part or something else but it cannot be pot and cloth together so in no way neither from itself is something born nor from something else is something born not from a mixture of itself and something else is something born the these are first three what is born if you ask from what is born neither from itself nor from anything else not from a mixture of itself and something else and then what is the entity which is which already originates sat is it an existing thing which comes into existence is it assat is it a non-existent thing which comes into existence or is it a mixture of existence and non-existence which comes into existence a mixture of existence and non-existence comes into existence none of those things are also possible um so which is what we have discussed earlier if somebody says hey wait a minute you're just playing with words we all know a part is born of clay a part is created from clay that's simple but we have a in advaita we have already discussed this example if you look at a pot and if the moment you say it is created from clay gora pada will have none of that because the moment you talk about clay and you examine the pot you find it's nothing but clay where is the part now is your question was from where how did a pot originate and if you say from clay pot originated the moment you examine the part it's clay only there is no part left now do you understand why i'm saying when you examine the part it's clay only because what you touch is clay what you're seeing is clay what you weigh is the clay itself what is the part then the part is a name a word part it's a particular shape form and a particular use you can store water in it or milk in it or something like that the part is not a second entity substance apart from the clay it is name form and use nama rupa yawahara somebody may may persist well at least its name for menus nama rupa whoever at least that much is there so that's the part but no name form and use the form of the pot can it exist without the clay not at all take the clay what will happen to the form of the pot will disappear the use of the pot that you can use it to store water if you take the clay away can you use it to store water or milk or anything nothing it'll just disappear once the pot disappears when you take away the clay then what does the name part refer to it becomes an empty word does not refer to anything there's nothing it will refer to this is why the clay is there but there is already a name clay which refers to the clay now this new name part what does it refer to so name form and use are nothing when you when you subtract the basic material which is clay so there is really no such entity called part which has been burned to say this gorham either says it's not born from itself it's not born from something else not born from a mixture of itself and something else it's not an existing thing which comes into existence it's not a non-existent thing that comes into existence it's not a mixture of existing and non-existing that comes into existence in no way a product is produced then the same thing he says in another way this is by the way of concluding his attack on this on cause the attack on causality will continue but this section attack on karma um this is 23 i just read 23. i'll read out the english translation i know people have asked are raising hands but i'll just finish this section 23 23 a cause is not born of a beginningless effect nor does an effect naturally come out of a beginning less cause cause and effect or thus burtless but a thing that has no cause has certainly no birth okay but what is what has been said here nothing new it is exactly what has been said earlier if you say the effect has come from what cause if you we've already discussed this earlier is it a cause which is less but there is no such thing as a beginning less cause if you say the cause itself has a beginning then what is what is at the beginning of the chain of cause and effect same things which we have discussed earlier so no effect is born of a beginning less cause and nor is um a beginningless effect is there which produces future cause and effect that's also not possible here is one other thing see every alternative they considered one or other thing is that why talk like this why not just say cause and effect just they just came into being body and karma they just came into being random accidentally there's no explanation for it we are not talking about god we are not talking about prakriti or nature or brahman maya nothing just just body and karma popped into existence random arbitrary why not just if you say that what's the problem the problem is then the whole project of moksha becomes meaningless if body and karma can suddenly come into existence without any reason whatsoever then suppose there's moksha you're free suddenly body and karma will come into existence and you're trapped in samsara again moksha is there you are free you are durya but if body and karma can randomly come into existence they have come into existence now you are in a body and you have got past karma and the whole cycle of samsara will start for you then then what is the meaning of moksha in that case if randomly body and karma can come into existence really so he dismisses that then the next the second line is interesting he will literally translate that that which has no beginning that has no beginning that entity has no beginning what does that mean what he means is the the beginning aadi has two meanings the first one is so if an entity has no origination then the second adi means cause that means it has no cause either that which is unborn has no cause it's beyond cause so there is no effect no cause and the tudium the atman which is unborn has no cause no preceding cause which is not not produced by anything so that's the um section attacking the law of karma remember at the transactional level which god upon is not interested in there you can accept the law of karma and merely proceed see this is why manduki is a little dangerous why it is always the last thing to be taught or um it is sometimes criticized or i remember one monk told me many many years ago when that monk was a brahmacharya novice in the okay let me back up a little bit i was in the training center and uh we were i was teaching at that time so a senior monk came visiting and he asked me so what are you teaching the brahmacharis what's what are they being taught now i said they are now studying the manduka he said oh do you know kalida maharat swami adina sananji was a disciple of the holy mother many years ago many many years ago when this senior monk was a novice a brahmachary that swami came visiting and he asked them what are you studying in the training center now and this brahmacari this monk at that time he said oh we swami we are studying the manduka karika and swami adi nathan said no no no manuka karika don't teach it to the boys they'll become atheists they'll become atheists one has to take this very carefully he is see the question is then why does vedanta talk about the law of karma if it's not real see that's an initial position a provisional position to bring us out of this animalistic instinctive life we are shown that everything has cause and effect is it fiction no ultimately fiction but right now in our state of maya in our state of delusion it's very very true as swami vivekananda said none escape the law so we must learn the law and act according to the law understand that evil action has bad consequences absolutely it does don't mistake god of others uh dismissal of the law of karma as um what do they call it a carte blanche or something that gives you the permission to do whatever you like no if you do sriram krishna puts it this way in bengali he said lanka kelley jalal if you eat a hot chili you're going to get burnt it's going to sting similarly law of karma kicks into effect the moment you do anything in identification with body and mind which we are let's admit it as long as we are not enlightened we are trapped in this body-mind complex when you do something immediately the law of karma kicks into effect and there will be some results some some consequences every action has consequences and every consequences there is a cause behind it so one must be very careful by following the law of karma careful about what action we do what our speech what we say false speech harsh speech unkind talk avoid those that's bad karma and what kind of thought we nurture in our mind see here's something subtle we have no control over what thoughts pop into our mind from the subconscious or what the external world throws into our mind there's a reaction in the mind at that moment we have no control but the next moment whether we shall entertain that negative thought of depression or anger or restlessness or whether we shall fight against it and control it and and transform it that freedom we have got so uh what thoughts we nourish i notice i did not say what thoughts come into our mind we are responsible for that no what thoughts we nourish what speech we we indulge in and what actions we do this is karma and it has results as we follow this carefully and we we rectify and and monitor our lives we rise to a moral and ethical life and that is the basis for vedanta with when we are prepared then this higher teaching comes into thinking that it sets you free from causality so from an instinctive animalistic life to an understanding of causality lifting ourselves to a more moral and ethical life ready for the higher spirituality to freedom from causality as swamiji says far beyond name and form is atman ever free thou art that one section is over let me quickly see if i can take care of some respond to some questions because then another new section is going to begin a very interesting section is going to begin now all right sashank are there questions who is raise the hand yes namaste so according to advaita vedanta [Music] yes because he's not he does not say that ignorance has a beginning or ignorance is beginningless because ignorance in itself is not a reality notice governor passes position it's in one sense it may be mysterious but actually it's very easy to understand just take the stand of ultimate reality i am turya or i am the atman pure consciousness pure being pure bliss that is what is ultimate truth i am that alhambra must be i am brahman take your stand from there and then look at it from that perspective is there ignorance at all no so the question of a beginning less ignorance and how can there be a beginningless ignorance which we talk about in in vedanta definitely we do um god or father will say he'll dismiss it because from the perspective of thorium there is no ignorance at all why do we at all talk about this ignorance because we feel it at from our perspective until we realize that i am brahmana or i am the turiam beyond cause and effect the witness of the three states the ground of the three states or waking dreaming and deep sleep until we realize that realize means as a matter of living truth undisputable until that point we have to admit that we are under ignorance we don't know it we don't feel it realize it and how did that ignorance come if you ask that question the answer will be it's beginningless and that's not a illogical position i remember the philosopher professor j.n mahanti in a class in the institute of culture in gold park in kolkata a class on vedanta when he talked about the beginningless ignorance he said that's not difficult to understand it it's a very common sense thing he asked so do you know german we said no since when do you not know german so ignorant of german right yes since when are you ignorant of german somebody said since my birth oh so you knew german before your birth no no no i didn't know that any kind of ignorance is actually beginningless think about it any ignorance is beginningless but it has an end the moment you start learning german whatever you are ignorant about when you start cultivating that knowledge your ignorance goes away ignorance comes to an end i was ignorant about german then i took a few classes on german now i'm not ignorant about german ignorance says beginningless ignorance comes to an end so ignorance is not an entity like a positive entity like other things yeah we'll leave it at that yeah um who else is there two others i think yes nitin this was a good segue into my question i had a very uh related question that ignorance comes to an end the beginning less ignorance comes to an end at the relative level i'm not talking about the absolute at the relative level it comes to end means the knowledge has a beginning yeah so if a knowledge has a beginning can that knowledge not end at the relative level it will come to an end every knowledge comes to an end so this might be shocking but it's actually basic if you remember our vedanta which arises the flash of knowledge i am brahmana what does it do it serves to remove the ignorance that i am not brahmana and then brahman which is ever shining is realized now that realization is not a function of the mind so it will it it is not something that has a beginning or an end that flash of knowledge which removes ignorance it's also an event in our mental life the ignorance which was there in the mind is now removed by knowledge in the mind and that knowledge also goes away but remember when that not when i say the knowledge goes away it does not mean that we are again ignorant the knowledge was an episode a flash which reveals to us that we are ever brahmana we never wear this individual sentient being called a jiva once that is revealed you are brahman so we can call it revelation if not knowledge but there is something that begins yes it stays even after that is gone there is something that had begun with that and it stays the ignorance has an end the ignorance has an end and brahman is beginning less endless and that's what you are yeah right so you say doesn't the realization of brahman have a beginning and that will continue no not necessarily you realize that you're brahmana and that realization of brahman is what continues is not an event in the mind it's that you are brahman it's it it's evident it's ever shining practically what happens to an enlightened person is that this this realization that i am brahmana it's evident and it's always available it's not something that a person has to keep thinking i am ramana i'm rama no that ignorance which made that person think that i am a person i am this body mind and i've heard about something called brahman i've understood something about it but that flash when it comes i am that that is the reality even that i also becomes secondary it's a function of the mind that reality becomes uppermost and that's always available that mind which realized it now is a jivan mukta's mind that mind does not keep dwelling on it but if it wants it can refer back to it's always available can you hear me hear me clearly because i got a message saying that your connection is unstable can you hear me clearly yeah okay okay nothing is born and hence we cannot intellectually find an appropriate cause for it yes but in gita bhagavan says resonating the same thing or is he disagreeing with the scripture right the the very nature of the cause is to remain and the effect is to come and go notice what is cause and effect in a vedantic sense even sankhya sense um from the same water waves arise and waves disappear so the waves have an origination time when they stay and time when they disappear but the water is always there so water as the cause of the waves is always available and the waves have keep coming and going so in that sense ishvara brahman saguna brahman with maya brahman with maya is called ishwara god god is seen as the cause of this universe so god with the power of maya is always the eternal god is eternal and in that eternal god the universe arises which is called creation srishti it stays for some time stiti and it disappears back into into uh into god into saguna brahman just as the wave arises and the wave subsides back into the water so the universe is non-eternal in the sense of coming and going and god is eternal in the sense of being the eternal cause what gaurapada is saying this whole thing of god as the cause and universe as the product is an appearance there is a reality which is beyond it which is underlying it it is because of nir guna brahman that even because i cannot say nir guna brahman is the only reality and at the level of appearance at the level of our samsara appearance there is cause and effect here there is an eternal cause called god and a non-eternal effect called this world our body mind but the whole thing is an appearance a superimposition in technical terms adhyasa the reality always is turya so in terms of mandukya there are three states waking dreaming deep sleep waking and dreaming are called karya effect deep sleep is called kharana growth state waking subtle state state dreaming causal state look at the word causal karnavastha is deep sleep sushupti that causal state is the state of god and the subtle state is the state of god the causal state is state of god causal is in sanskrit the state of god is ishwara the subtle state is the mental state it is called hiranyakarba and the physical state the gross through the state is called virat or vishwaroopa what gowdapada is saying none of them are real only thuriam is real the one which is appearing as cause and effect thorium is appearing as ishvara hiranyagarpa virat but appearing as which is real is tourium real plus each for a plus plus plus we not no it's like saying there is um a bracelet a necklace and a ring and gold fourth how many are there if you count the ornaments three but if you count gold only one gold alone exists but it appears in these ways yes pranam um i think i have i don't know if my question makes sense or not i think i'm clouded a little bit by signs and i'll refer to the clay pot example today you said that time space and causality is not real um what do you think about energy for example with the clay pot example how do we account for the energy or some thought that goes in the transformation of the clay to the pot or even something else right so first of all don't extend the clay pot example too much as sriracha used to say upon that means an example is meant to prove a point we are not actually concerned with clay or with pots it's just meant to prove a point that the pot is nothing apart from the clay that's all don't bring the potter into it don't bring pottery barn into it and things like that so that's one point second is what about energy matter and energy both are appearances uh what is the reality brahman is the reality that that's what um god brother would say how do you understand this you have to go back to chapter two and chapter three for example god or father would immediately give the example of the dream example for example you see in dreams you see so many things made of matter buildings and trees and these organic matter inorganic matter living beings non-living beings and there's so much energy being expended people are moving around and talking and fighting and lots of things are happening but when you wake up when you wake up you realize that one mind alone appeared as all that matter and all that energy and that matter energy was not real what was real was the mind that is an example what is being exemplified what is god upon this point the point is from the perspective of thorium which is consciousness and existence everything else matter energy time space causality is an appearance so that's that's the answer uh let's go on sorry one last question you are born you're born there must be a cause behind it so there was karma before before your birth that karma part of your past karma prarabdha karma has produced this birth this body your parents your particular circumstances for this life a part of your past karma is responsible so karma was before birth and now this birth with this body are producing fresh karma so clearly there is a sequence so but isn't he saying that this is not possible yeah he's saying this is not possible so one of the things which you said simultaneous how so he's saying simultaneous it cannot be how can it be simultaneous because uh the karma which produced this body must have come before this body so it cannot be simultaneous you said it can't they come together yes so it is but we but we are going through past lives there is this birth life cycle he's refuting that he's refuting that notice this is a crucial point this is the the key to what's going on here it might seem very mystifying otherwise governor power at no point denies that you are experiencing these things he does not deny your experience he denies the reality of your experience he does not deny that you are seeing a pot but he is saying that the part is nothing apart from the clay he does not deny that you see a necklace or a ring or a bracelet but he's saying that necklace ring and bracelet are nothing apart from the gold there is no entity called a necklace apart from the gold similarly when you say aren't we going through past lives present life people things are happening is he denying this what is he saying you have to be careful he is saying what you are seeing now none of it is apart from you the consciousness in fact it is a nice segue into the next topic if you are asking is there an external real world at all are we going through a real life with real people real body is there are things there externally or not if this is one form of the question you are asking as we common sense we take it to be is there zoom is there a swami um hundreds or thousands of miles away are there multiple time zones people getting together all these things are they happening or not what is his answer to that so he is not denying that you are experiencing it but is denying that they are real how unreal things how can we experience of course we can experience unreal things don't we dream don't we make errors don't we watch movies don't we read fiction okay but this is a question and uh let's go on now the next section comes along precisely this question is there an external world many of the philosophers god upon the deals with and many of the questions which we come we deal with is how are you saying that there is not a world outside so this is the standard question that bill has been asking for 95 years so how are you denying that there is a world outside outside my mind so this is the question asked by the realist by the materialist who says a world exists whether you know it or not whether you imagine it or not there is a world outside your own thoughts objects exist and then you perceive them so this this kind of philosophy is now going to be ah examined and rejected by god again using his attack on causality um who are these people so specifically what's going on here is earlier gorda pada has rejected the sankhyas he's rejected all those philosophers who talk about law of karma now his target is actually the buddhists what he does here is little background the uh ancient buddhists in india were divided into four philosophical schools saudrantika vaibhashika yoga vignavada that's one name and madhyamaka navada four schools of buddhism what are the differences between them many many differences but for what concerns us right now is this issue of whether there is a world external world apart from my mind or not question is there a world apart from my mind who thinks that common sense that's our common sense the people i see they exist apart from me my body exists in the physically the chair i exit on is existing physical it's not in my mind there's a world out there which exists so i'm living a life in this physical world this is the common sense view on this question there can be four positions which the buddhists have taken up what are these four positions one position is the southern thicker view which is called bayata pratyaksha body that means you directly perceive external objects by external i mean apart from you the knower the teacup you perceive there is a real teacup in the world is a real world and a real teacup and you are touching it seeing it directly it is revealed to you by your perception by seeing touching the tea you taste it is really out there apart from your minds not in your mind and how do you know it's there by protection by seeing hearing smelling tasting touching it's very close to our common sense the way we view the world are you with me so the first alternative is there is an external world how do you know we see it we see it here it smell it taste it touch it one bihar pratakshavadhi bhai here means external artha means object but texture means direct perception vadi means the philosopher who says that external things exist and are directly perceived sultryantika one buddhist second the vibhashika buddhist is saying that no no no there is an external world but we do not directly perceive it we infer it what do you mean notice what happens when you perceive something when you say them perceiving something here is a book i am looking at a book now but really what is happening is and this is common sense science uh today also by absolutely modern science will have no objections to this way of thinking the light falls on the book and the light goes reflected from the book goes into my eyes by the time it reaches my eyes the book is not there the book does not enter my eyes thank god only the light enters the eyes so what my sense organs are receiving oh satrantika you said directly you're perceiving no no no directly only light goes into your eyes and from there um your mind it goes to the brain and the in the brain the neurons fire and somehow an image of this book is created in your mind and you say i see a book so by the activity of our sense organs and our optical nerves and our brain activity we get a result from which we infer that there is really a book outside are you with me is this not how we understand perception in modern medicine and biology physiology actually nobody says that we are directly experiencing objects objects sense data only comes to us objects don't come to us sense data are gathered by our sense organs and then sense data is also transformed into little bursts of electricity there is neither side nor sound light no objects are there only little bursts of electricity racing along our nerves optic nerve auditory nerve olfactory nerves erasing around our nerves to the brain centers and from there somehow nobody knows how that is the crux of the heart problem of consciousness nobody knows how these sights sounds smells tests are presented to you the consciousness from there you infer such things exist in the world you see i don't think like that we don't think like that but that's what's going on basically would you agree yeah so this is a more scientific way of looking at it this is called bihar numadi bhaiya external artha object anumaya means inferable vadi philosopher the philosopher who infers the existence of external objects both say there is a world and there are external things in the world absolutely as you experience them they are there so these are they are called realists buddhist realists these are attacked by the third school of buddhism the vignava the yoga chara vignavadi buddhist who says neither directly perceived nor experienced and not inferred there are no external objects they only appear to be external now everything is is internal is in your mind just like a dream when you perceive that there are things people and teacup everything external but actually when you wake up what do you realize everything was in my mind space time people objects activities all was going on in my mind only in the dream yeah in the dream there was nothing external i was not experiencing an external world exactly like that what you think your waking world is all of that is in consciousness only you say just a minute sounds like advaita very much like advaita so the viganavadhi buddhist denies any external objects whatever you experience you experience in consciousness it's like watching a movie there is no external object at all now they're very much like advaita vedanta the last one we are not concerned with the shunyavadi which god does not talk about here what godfather now does is remember godupath's unique way of fighting against his opponents do you remember what he does is he uses the arguments of one against the other so he has done this earlier also now he's going to do this what he say he wants to deny that there is an external world and here are two philosophers sautrantika vaibhashika buddhists who say there is an external world directly perceived or inferred and here is another buddhist philosopher who is very much like advaitans and who says that everything is in consciousness there is no real external world at all when this idealistic buddhist the vignavadi attacks the realist buddhists the arguments that the vigyanavadi uses godapadha takes those arguments and he uses it to attack people who say that there are external objects this is an external world what is he doing using the vignavati's arguments against the satrantika bhasheka in order to show that there is it's illogical to think that there are external objects so will he agree with the vikyana bhati no he will ditch the gun when once his purpose is fulfilled he has defeated the realists now the vikyana badi will say so you are in our camp why don't you become a buddhist he will say no you are the worst of the lord for these reasons he will dismiss the vignawadi also but for the time being the story is this people say there are external objects the vignavadi opposes them just by the way in modern philosophy most fashionable current trend what is the thinking it's realism that the world is real there because it matches science and there are two schools of realism in modern philosophy western philosophy one is called naive realism naive realism means as the world exists so we perceive it we are directly perceiving the world you say hey that sounds a lot like the satrantika yes and there's a second school of realists which are called the critical realism critical realism is that we don't directly perceive the external world but we infer it data comes into our mind and from that we we make a picture of the external world and from that we infer that there is an external world and say hey doesn't it sound a lot like the vaibhashika yes so we have new names for them naive realism today in 21st 20th 21st century these are the prominent schools of philosophical metaphysical thinking today naive realism critical realism they don't know 25 centuries ago in ancient india these were prominent schools of buddhism okay now i will just do one more verse just start the debate off because we are running out of time we are so far this is the background realism under attack by the idealistic buddhists and we or godapada is going to use the idealistic buddhist to refute the realists and then later he will dismiss titleistic buddhist also so we are entering in the middle of the debate we lost the sound can you hear me i think somebody's saying that we can't hear you can hear you can hear yeah we can hear so um we are joining the debate the story has already started we are joining it halfway i give you all the background for the understanding what's going on here what's going on here is the story has started the idealists are saying oh realists there are no external objects it's everything is in your mind like a dream everything is like watching a movie actually not out there now they realists are going to push back so this is the point where we are joining the story when the idealist says there are no external objects it's all in your mind uh remember who is here the vikyana the idealist whom we are joining for the time being and the opponent is the realists who are there they are also buddhists um they are satirantik and vaibhashika they are going to push back and say how can you say there are no external objects c 20 verse number 25 just a minute no 24 what's number 24 somebody should have pointed data this out pragya shatter says this is an objection from counter-attack from the satrantika bhaskar 24. translation we have to admit that knowledge has its objects since a contrary supposition leads to an annihilation of duality and the existence of objects as supported by the opposite systems of thought is also admitted from the fact of the experiences of pain so what what is being said here the realists are pushing back and remember these people they may have existed 2000 years ago and maybe existing in academic departments now but their questions are our questions this is a very common sense view so what's going on here um just a minute so the realist pushes back says there are external objects external means external not to the body external to your consciousness external to consciousness apart from consciousness why notice your experiences who is saying this the realist to the idealist to us we are also hiding behind the idealist now with godab the realist is saying notice your experiences you have so many experiences if you think your consciousness consciousness is one and the same the same consciousness has so many experiences why should the same consciousness have many experiences unless there are many things outside consciousness i'll repeat that you have so many kinds of knowledge you see so many things and people right now right now when you look you see so many people in on your zoom screen and each of them has a different interesting background and you hear sounds that i'm talking and what i'm saying also has many words i'm saying many different things and the things you can touch and if you are eating you can taste something so all those different kinds of knowledge are coming to you one after another again and again and if you are if there is only consciousness nothing outside consciousness how will you account for this variety of knowledge because there are external objects millions of external objects people and food and smells and tastes and touch all of these things are there the items to be tasted touched or smelled they are there because of that you are getting variety of experiences if that was not so if consciousness alone was so it was was existing then he says dwaya duality would be lost without duality no experience you need subject and object for experience and for multiplicity of experiences because you are the same subject having multiple experiences that means there must be multiple objects and if you say there is only the subject consciousness as you the idealist vignabadi says then how will you account for experience you are also having multiple experiences series of experiences throughout the day so dwaya anasha duality will go away if only subject is admitted and with so what if duality goes away we want non-duality no if your duality goes over then there will be no subject object there will be no exp and experience no no way of accounting for your experiences you can't dismiss your experiences god upadha you know remember what i said earlier god apart is trying to show is not denying your experience but questioning the reality of your experience here the realist is pushing back you can't question the reality of the objects without those objects you will not have these experiences how will you explain the experiences variety of experiences by only consciousness also he gives a special clay a case some glaciers because of pain and remember this is buddhists so they're big on pain the whole thing starts with everything is sorrow so because of the existence of pain you must admit that there is a cause of pain and there is a body which feels pain he is giving a prominent problem for us prominent problem is suffering pain physical and mental take very simple example of physical pain a burn or a prick where it hurts now just consider that example you can't say it's all in the mind it's there must clearly there is something that caused the pain so there must be something outside your mind and there is something that felt the pain which is very physical it is the body which feels the pain so the existence of pain proves a body which experiences pain and something outside the which causes pain maybe outside means outside the mind could be internal to the body or outside the body but it causes pain to the body and clearly you feel it so existence of external objects must be admitted because of multiplicity of of experiences and also because of the very important experience of pain what will you say to that who we are they are hiding big is in front so vignavadi has got answers for that we will see unfortunately we have run out of time because i have to join the san diego uh meeting also so and you also have to get ready many of you are joining that meeting um prabhupada when i raised the hand let's see yeah it's a cliffhanger we seem to have proved external objects bill often asks this question from samuel johnson remember the same debate happened three or four or four hundred years ago berkeley uh bishop berkeley he uh the philosopher irish priest and philosopher whose subjective idealist just like the vignabad he said it's all in the mind there's no nothing external and samuel johnson when he was told this um this philosophy that everything is subjective in the mind no objective experience no objective entities samuel johnson it seems he kicked a rock and he said i refute it thus i refute it thus what does he mean by that here is a solid thing i'm kicking and it's hurting my toes almost the same argument which two thousand years ago the south radhika and vaibhashi are pushing back against the idealist what does the idealist say to wait for a week let me i will not take time just give you the answer in essence otherwise you will be intention to spare you this metaphysical tension for one week does the external world exist or not let so the vignavadi answers that no there is no external object an example could be the dream in a dream you see your own body you see other people maybe rain is falling and it feels wet all of that the rain and the clouds and the body and the feeling wet the whole thing is in the mind and you yourself admit it once you wake up so in the same way this whole thing can be in consciousness entire diversity there's a way of explaining the diversity because of maya so just like in the same mind can imagine and create subject object and all sorts of diversity similarly in consciousness in the waking state also the whole thing can be and in fact is uh experienced so that will be the answer from the he will say from the perspective of advaithic reality that means consciousness reality turya you will see the whole thing is an appearance in consciousness there is no need to accept extern things existing externally not only there's no need it's illogical and external things apart from consciousness that will be the answer and that will not be the end of it the realist will push back again very subtle questions will be there and those will all all be dealt with not by us not by godopathera by the vignavadhi will do all the hard work for us and when the realities are defeated godhapada will mercilessly get rid of the vignavadi also so that's going to be the program for next time prabhupada let's quickly hear your question yeah you don't have to answer today but my question is the the difference between the abrahamic ibrahim religions do not have the law of karma and we do and some some people actually say that that is because of our dharma sick nature we will even fake too much so i want to know the difference between the two and what the pros and cons yeah that's a that's a big question but remember here we are not here we are even dismissing the law of karma the law of karma is a much more sophisticated answer to the whole problem of life um and beyond that lies advaita and god of other who dismisses even the law of karma so it's not that see this is alternative the alternative is god is in charge so ultimately everything that happens to us is because of god but even in the abrahamic religions judaism christianity islam remember the very important fact is god is just so what god does to us this is the standard of justice so we deserve we get what we deserve and in the bible we sow uh what we reap so whatever we have sown that we reap that's more or less the law of karma in its um did i say seed form so when you say just there is some link between what we are getting and what god is giving so it's not random not arbitrary it's almost exactly like the law of karma without spelling out the details but the whole thing goes up is rejecting he says it's illogical all right we'll leave it at that [Music] all right you