Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Ch.2 1.2-5 Lecture 45 on 27 June 2026 Q&A

Question: Jīvanmukta as Guru – Dual Consciousness

Question: A jīvanmukta, Mahārāj, you have said that once a person gets full realization, he never thinks that he was not Brahman at one point and he has become Brahman.

Response: Correct.

Questioner: That becomes an established fact for him.

Response: Yes.

Questioner: But then when the same jīvanmukta becomes a Guru like Ajātaśatru, he is guiding the other disciples, and he does remember that he was a sādhaka at some point and he practiced some upāsanas.

Response: Yes.

Questioner: I see a gap in my understanding.

Response: Very simple. In his realization, he never forgets "I am Brahman." But he is working now through the mind—body and mind.

Questioner: Yeah.

Response: If you be careful, the guru must have a body. Yeah, otherwise, if he comes at midnight without a body, sometimes our hearts are weak. So you understand what I am talking about? Yeah, alright. So that mind is remembering. He doesn't say, "I remember." Okay, who is talking about Parabrahma? Parabrahma is talking, or our mind is talking?

Questioner: Our mind is only talking.

Response: We don't know what Parabrahma is—whether he exists, doesn't exist, what qualities—nothing. So when we think about Brahma, we superimpose upon that Brahman our understanding: "He is the supreme Brahman." We don't even know the saguṇa brahma, not to speak of Parabrahma. You understand? These are all... Just like, you know, there is no comparison theory. A jīvanmukta never thinks, "I am the mind." But as if there is a mind—there is what is called a computer in front of him. He is accessing it, and he is accessing: "Oh, this is who, somebody had done these things. These are appropriate teachings to this disciple." And then he tells it. This dual consciousness is not possible for us to understand, even though we undergo this multiple personality syndrome all the time.

No, all the time. When a mother is looking at the baby, she has two personalities: "I am an individual, nothing to do with the baby. I am also a mother having something to do with this baby"—isn't it? So if you are going to office, that is the second personality added. So if you are belonging to a club, a third personality is added. So according to the role you are playing, one personality is added, isn't it? When you are acting—just a funny thing, you know: suppose a woman doesn't like her husband. She never gets an opportunity to beat him. But she is acting in a drama, and her husband also is acting as her husband in the drama. And the scene is written in such a way that she takes a broom and beats him. She takes it out without offending him. And the audience exclaim, "What a realistic performance!"

We never forget our individual personality. That is the point. We never forget who we are in and through all these personalities. We simply become temporarily identified with that secondary, third personality. Isn't it? We also do that, but we don't know who we are. But a jīvanmukta knows who he is. He knows, he pretends. When he is seeing Brahman, whom is he going to teach? So deliberately, he sheds the personality called Brahman, adopts the personality called Brahmā, and tries to teach. Okay, yes, think deeply.

Question: Meditating on Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa as Hiraṇyagarbha and Nirvikalpa

Questioner: The second question, Mahārāj: just like how in this chapter, Ajātaśatru is explaining the different adhiṣṭhāna devatās through them—different upāsanas, different aspects of the same Hiraṇyagarbha. If a devotee wants to meditate on Ṭhākur as Hiraṇyagarbha, then if the devotee tries to read about different disciples, monks who have realized Ṭhākur in different aspects—correct—we have... So when a devotee starts doing...

Response: I know what you are trying to indicate. There is a dhyāna mantra: Hṛdayakamalamātya rajitaṃ nirvikalpa.

Questioner: Yes, Mahārāj.

Response: So you meditate upon nirvikalpa. Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa is nirvikalpa. How do I identify myself? When I am angry with somebody, when I am pleased with somebody, it should not affect me—my real me. These are all things that come and go. In relation with some worldly transactions, these things happen. That is why nirvikalpa means sukha-duḥkhe samay kṛtvā—"honor, dishonor, happiness, unhappiness, good and evil, cold and heat"—so all these things, let them come, let me experience. But I know I am beyond this. That is called nirvikalpa. Prakṛti-vikṛti-śūnyam—so I am not the body, I am not the māyā. So take one quality, think about them really, and apply them in practical life. I said nirvikalpa means what? I must remain like Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa in nirvikalpa. Whether a snake is crawling, somebody is beating, it doesn't really matter. This is the effect, the result of upāsanā. That is why the dhyāna mantras take a very special—what is called—look at it and see how they can be applied to day-to-day life. That itself is a big exercise.

Question: Gārgya vs. Ajātaśatru – Essence vs. Object

Questioner: The explanation that you are giving from Gārgya's and Ajātaśatru's standpoint—the way I am understanding is: Gārgya was seeing Brahman in things like sun, moon, lightning, whereas Ajātaśatru was looking at the essence around these objects—very similar to Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa who was looking at Mā inside Swamiji.

Response: Yeah.

Questioner: Is that how? Okay, so we should... So going back to your previous explanations, looking at the essence of the objects and then meditating about it and then slowly transforming ourselves.

Response: Correct. That is the correct understanding. Just to make the point more clear: Gārgya was not meditating—you said "Brahman"—but which Brahma? Saguṇa brahma. Not nirguṇa brahma. Because if Gārgya was meditating and realized saguṇa brahma, he would have become free—he would have attained mokṣa. But he didn't. How do we know? Because he understood: "My knowledge doesn't release me. I have to learn the real knowledge from Ajātaśatru." When he understood that, then he became humble and became a disciple—recipient, right?

Questioner: Yes.

Response: If he knew "I am Brahman," he would not have approached—isn't it?

Questioner: Yes.

Response: Then Ajātaśatru would not have corrected him. Okay. Yeah. So what is in essence—we have to understand—certain good qualities we have to develop in order to become fit students to receive brahmavidyā. That is the essence.

Question: Who is the Teacher in the Dialogue?

Questioner: Just a little confused in my mind. You know, in this dialogue between Ajātaśatru and Gārgya, in the very first verse itself, it is established that Ajātaśatru is the guru who is doing the teaching—isn't it? And so is it like Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna that Arjuna keeps giving questions all through the various chapters, and Kṛṣṇa, of course, remains the teacher? Because in each of these subsequent verses, it looks like Gārgya uvāca—so he starts with the question. So I am just curious to know whether it is established quite early that it is Ajātaśatru who is doing the teaching.

Response: Gārgya tells, "This is what I know." Ajātaśatru says, "That is fine, but a little more needs to be added to your existing fund of knowledge." But in a sense, what it means—just now I mentioned—Ajātaśatru wants Gārgya to become a fit disciple, and a fit disciple is one who has certain spiritual qualities. And Ajātaśatru was trying through these upāsanas to make Gārgya develop those qualities. Did you understand what I said? If Gārgya had those qualities, Ajātaśatru straight away could have gone to the real teaching. Ajātaśatru understood this disciple: sincere person, but he lacks certain qualities. What is upāsanā? Deep thinking. "I have to look upon everybody as equal." Is it a good quality or not?

Questioner: Yes, yes.

Response: That is how whatever you think upon deeply becomes your own quality.

Questioner: Correct.

Response: And these are called spiritual qualities.