Mandukya Karika Lecture 105 on 31-May-2023
Summary v1
The 19th Kārikā of the 3rd Chapter of the Mandukya Kārikā emphasizes the concept of Advaita (non-duality) and addresses the views of Dvaitins (dualists). Gaudapada asserts that the ultimate reality is Advaitam, while Dvaitins believe in the inherent division of reality. There are two types of Dvaitins: those who consider everything, including God, to be separate, and those who believe that although originally Advaita, they become Dvaita and can attain Advaita through spiritual practice.
From the Advaitin's perspective, the experience of duality is only apparent and not real. They view the universe and God as seeming experiences within the framework of the mind. Dvaitins, on the other hand, perceive the world and God as separate entities. They believe in Saguna Brahma, a God with qualities, who creates and acts in various ways.
Gaudapada explains that the seeming duality is due to Maya, which operates in the mind. Maya creates the perception of duality, but it doesn't mean that Brahman has truly become the universe. Just as a rope appearing as a snake is not a real transformation, the perceived duality is a result of ignorance and perception through the mind. Brahman, being infinite, cannot undergo real change or be born.
If Brahman were to truly become the creation, it would imply that the immortal becomes mortal and the infinite becomes finite, which is irrational and impossible. The concept of Jeevatma (individual self) being separate from Paramatma (supreme self) and seeking union with it is discussed as the current condition of the Jeeva (individual) in the study of the Mandukya Kārikā.
In summary, Gaudapada emphasizes that the ultimate truth is Advaita, non-duality, and the perception of duality is a result of Maya and the mind. Brahman cannot be born or undergo real change. The concept of individual self seeking union with the supreme self is addressed as the current state of the Jeeva.
Summary v2
In the 19th verse of the 3rd chapter of the Mandukya Karika, Gaudapada discusses the two perspectives on reality: Advaita (non-dual) and Dvaita (dual). Dvaitins believe in the inherent division of reality, while Advaitins see duality as an illusion or apparent experience. Gaudapada argues that the perception of duality is due to Maya, which operates in the mind. Dvaitins consider both God (Saguna Brahman) and the world (Srishti) as separate entities, while Advaitins understand them as manifestations of the ultimate reality (Nirguna Brahman). Gaudapada emphasizes that Advaita cannot be negated, even though duality appears real from the perspective of the mind. He further explains that Brahman cannot undergo real change or be born, as it is infinite. If Brahman were to become finite, it would contradict its nature as the eternal and immortal. The idea of Jeevatmas (individual souls) seeking reunion with Paramatma (Supreme Self) is discussed, highlighting the perceived distance and differences between them. Gaudapada suggests seeking a Sadguru who can guide one to realize their true nature and overcome the illusion of duality.
Full Transcript
We are studying the 19th Kārikā of the 3rd Chapter of the Mandukya Kārikā. In this verse 18, Gaudapada is asserting,
advaitam paramārtho hi dvaitam tadbheda uchyate
teṣāṁ ubhayatā dvaitam tenāyam na virudhyate
Gaudapadaa is talking about some of the Dvaitins. Most of the Dvaitins, all the Dvaitins in fact, that they do not accept Advaitic view. What do they say? That reality is always divided. That is why it is called Dvaitam. So, there are two types of Dvaitins are there. Some people think that Brahman is always Dvaitam only. He is never an advaitin. Saguna Brahmam, they don't accept Nirguna Brahmam at all. There are some peculiar types of people. They say Brahman is Advaita, only one without a second, but He creates and He becomes many. So, for most of us we are in this condition. What is it? God created the world and He created me. And that is how I am called Jeevatma. I come from God. I have to go back to God. Somehow the infinite has become finite. But if the finite goes to the infinite, it becomes again once more infinite. So, I hope you got the point.
Two types of Dvaitins. For first Dvaitin, everything is Dvaita, including God. For the second type, originally it is Advaita. Then we come down, we become Dvaita and again through sadhana we attain to that state of Advaita. So, keeping these two types of people in mind, Gaudapada is addressing what is Paramartha, final truth, real truth, only truth, Advaitam. And Dvaitam tadbheda uchyate. So, what is this Dvaita then? So, we experience only Dvaita. I am different, you are different. I am not only different from everything else, but I am different from myself all the time. I was a baby, then I grew up. Every day I am different from what I was, even one millisecond earlier what I was. Okay, this is our experiential point of view. We are all separate. But what about Bhagawan? Yes, yes, Parinamavada is there. So, He also is different. He is Saguna Brahma. And Saguna means sometimes He is kind, sometimes He is not kind, sometimes He creates, sometimes He withdraws. It is very difficult to say what this Saguna Brahma is going to do. So, for Dvaitins God also is Dvaitam. Universe, Srishti, is also Dvaitam. But for the Advaitins, it looks as though this so-called Dvaitic experience is only a seeming experience. We have to keep in the mind, in the background, two views. One is really the Nirguna Brahma has become the universe. This is called Parinamavada. The famous example is milk has really become curds. But if you question, once milk becomes curds, it never again remains as milk. It is permanently changed into curds. This is called Parinamavada.
But the other view is, what about my experience? For that umpteen number of examples, famous is rope and snake. Really is the snake born? So long as we perceive it, it is there. But as soon as light is brought up, immediately the snake disappears. And then we realize there was never any snake. Snake was never born. And whatever is not born cannot frighten me, etc. So, this is the Advaitin's view. Seemingly Dvaitam, not real Dvaitam. But Tesham, the opposite people who are arguing that we don't accept Advaita, we are all Dvaitins. For them, Saguna Brahma. Brahman is never Advaitin. But as I said, there are two views. Among them, yes, yes, our Brahman is Nirguna Brahma. But he really created this world also. Some people believe. So, following this argument, for Dvaitins, both Bhagawan also is Dvaita and Srishti is also Dvaita. Srishti is Dvaita, is very easily experienced. We see everything as separate from each other. What about Bhagawan? Yes, yes, He will be in different moods. So, what are those moods? Two types of moods. So, if He is considered as not creating, He is called Brahman, as Sri Ramakrishna says. But when I see that He is creating, etc., active, etc. Sri Ramakrishna gives the analogy of a snake. Whether a snake is just lying down, or it is wriggling, it is the same snake. But in one avatar, aspect, it is not doing anything, I call it Brahman. But when I see that it is doing something, then it is called Shakti. Shakti means movement. Shakti means Dvaitam. So, if we get any doubt, but really does God have two aspects, Nirguna and Saguna? The final answer is no. It is because of my perception. When my mind is in one state, that is complete identity with Brahman, I don't see any activity. I do not exist. Even I cannot say I am seeing Brahman. But when I am working through the mind, perceiving through the mind, and the mind's nature is time, space and causation, then everything is Dvaitam only. So that's why this is Advaitin's viewpoint about God. Nothing can be told. Everything has become polluted by being described, excepting Brahman. That's what Sri Ramakrishna’s famous saying to Eswar Chandra Vidya Sagar, Brahman alone remains unpolluted because Brahman is beyond both mind and speech, much less any activity.
So the point we have to understand easy way that when my mind is working I can only think about Saguna Brahma, not Nirguna Brahma. But when I get out of the mind, there is no I, there is no Brahman. Whatever exists is one. And this simple truth, though simple, it is complicated. Gaudapadacharya is telling, what is the real truth? Advaitam. So, what is Gaudapada telling? Real truth. Something is real truth, something is unreal truth from which point of view? Only from the mind's point of view. So, what about... I see innumerable things and they must have origin. That origin cannot be excepting Brahman and therefore He must be, what is called the origin, the cause. And Gaudapada says, just like a rope has never produced the snake and we cannot produce a snake, there is no snake at all. But as long as I, because of my ignorance, perceive something called the snake, it must have an origin. So, the rope has become the snake, etc? Really no. Advaitam tadbheda uchyate. When we see Advaitam through the prism of the mind, that is called Dvaitam. It's not real. It is my perception. That is an important point.
But there are some Dvaitins. Ubhayadha Tesham Dvaitam. God also is Saguna, and this Srishti is also Dvaitam. That is called Ubhayadha means both. Both God as well as Srishti both are Dvaitam. But whatever people may think, tena ayam na virudhyate. Advaitam can never be negated. We have no quarrel. What is the problem? The problem is people go on perceiving duality. What is the problem? If they believe in what they see and mind their own business, progress in their own way, no problem. But the moment they start asserting that my religion is true, my view is true, everybody's view is wrong, my watch alone is right, everybody's watch is wrong, that is where the problem will come.
With this background, verse number 19 is there. It is more or less repetition, but slight emphasis is there.
māyayā bhidyate hyetannānyathā'jaṃ kathañcana
tattvato bhidyamāne hi martyatāmamṛtaṃ vrajet
So beautiful logic is now employed by Gaudapada. And we can understand this logic much easier than the ascertainment that Brahman is Advaitam and nothing is really born. Very hard for us to understand. So, if you say, Oh Gaudapada, everything is what is called really Advaitam, then what is it that I experience? No, Brahman has not become the Srishti, but it appears to be Srishti, appearance, seeming creation. That is what he wants. Mayaya because of Maya. And where is this Maya? In my mind. Maya works in my mind. Just as I, the maker, create a dream and then I divide myself as it were. When I come out of the dream, I have not created anything and whatever I thought was real is not real at all. No change has taken place. I remain as the maker. That is every one of our experience. So Mayaya, because of the perception through the prism of the mind, Vidyate. So, the Dvaitam. Vidyate means different, different, different things. Dvaitam is seen. Na anyatha. Ajam means Brahman or Jeevatma. Brahman has never become Jeevatma. Jeevatma is never born. It is impossible. Kathanchana is impossible. And he gives a beautiful logic in future Karikas, verses and very easy for us to understand. So Maya is the only reason why we perceive this duality. But when we perceive the duality, it doesn't mean it is real. So many examples are there. We see something shining like a silver. So, we may mistake it as silver. But that's not silver. When we go near, our mistake will be corrected. There is no silver. It is only appearing like. We see great body of water in desert land. There is no water. Not a single drop. The sand will not become wet at all. We see that a house is burning on the cinema screen. But nothing happens to the screen. Everything is a play of the light. So many examples are given.
So, because of Maya, that is because of our problem, our mind, our ignorance, we perceive and attribute it to Brahman. That real change is taking place in Brahman? No, it is not. So, Brahman cannot be born. Born means can never be changed. Ajam means change. And we know there are sixfold changes. Sixfold. So conceived, born, growing, old age, disease, death. We see it. This is all the sixfold change. Birth means change. Brahman can never be born. Ajam kathanchana na. It is impossible for Brahman, that is for the infinite to become finite. Instead of saying birth, if we use the word infinite might become finite, easier to understand. Infinite can never become finite. So, there is a small instrument called kaleidoscope. You look at it every millisecond, the moment you change the position variously, one light appears to be a combination of millions of colours, combination of colours. But if you remove that instrument from the eye, then you will see that it is the same light. Nothing happens. Let the same light pass through a prism. Seven colours we can see. In fact, all the colours that we see really there are no colours. But every single day, every single second, we are experiencing these colours. So, it is not true that infinite can never become finite.
But supposing, here the reasoning comes. Tattvatah vidyamanehi. Suppose really Brahman has become this creation. Infinite becomes finite. Nirguna becomes Saguna. Then what happens? Amrutam, that which is immortal. Immortal means changeless. Changeless means infinite. Infinite means eternal. Martyatam Rajet. It becomes finite. Finite becomes change. Remember, Martyatam means mortality. Mortality means change. Change means what we call death. Just as birth is a change, death also is change. But this Mahamaya makes us think. When some baby is born, everybody laughs joyfully. But when the same baby dies or a grown-up die, it brings tears. Why? Because from birth onwards we can see until death everything is experienceable to our five sense organs. But once death happens, something inside the man goes and the body becomes decomposed, rotten, becomes useless. So, oh my friend, the infinite can never become finite. Supposing you say that the infinite can become finite, then what happens? Amrita becomes Mrita. Immortal becomes mortal. And this is irrational. It is not possible. So why? Many dualists believe that there was one Brahman, and he is called Brahman, Paramatma or Ishwara, whatever it is. And then we have become, we are all coming from there. I have become a Jeevatma. You have become a Jeevatma. I am in Samsara, so I am called Samsari. You are a Samsari. So, all Jeevatmas came from Brahman, and they got separated from Brahman. And now Jeeva is going through various problems, and he is seeking desperately how to get rid of these problems. So, what should the Jeeva do now? He heard from the scriptures that if he rejoins Paramatma, then he will be free from all problems. He becomes Sat, he becomes Chit, he becomes Ananda Swaroopa. This is the contention. And even though we are studying Mandukya Karika, actually this is our position now. So, I am a Jeeva. I am a thousand times convinced that I am a Jeeva. I am never a Paramatma. Yes, a little bit of Paramatma's divinity is in me, there is no doubt. But there is an infinite, almost infinite difference is there, distance is there from him and me. I am weak and he is strong. I don't have many things, he has many things. And I know very little, and he knows everything, etc. So, what should you do? Go and get some sad Guru, sit at his feet and get some sad Upadesham. Yes, you are a Jeevatma. God is very, very gracious. If you pray and surrender to him, he will remove your sadness. And a person who says you are a sad Samsari means some sorry, but a sad Guru becomes a Sadguru when he shows you a way out of it. So Jeevatma, he practices spiritual life, gradually he progresses and one day he joins Paramatma, he comes to know Aham Brahmasmi and then he goes on dancing. I don't know how he is going dancing, where does he get a space, where does he get a time? Because Brahman means beyond time, beyond space. Brahman means he cannot get some wagging his mouth. He said there are certain things God cannot do. What? God cannot do certain things? Yes, he cannot do. First of all, I can go on a holiday, he can't go on a holiday because he is everywhere. Secondly, suppose God gets angry with me and says I don't want to see your face. Let him try because he who is everywhere cannot avoid seeing my beautiful face. So, some limitations are there. Our view is we are limited through spiritual practice. We finally join the unlimited like a drop of water falling into the ocean. Then I become one ocean. Before that I was really a drop. Now I dropped that drop and I became the ocean. This is the idea. This is what Gaudapada is struggling to tell.
If by chance, Brahman has become Jeevatma, then what happens? The immortal becomes mortal, the infinite becomes finite, the Paramananda becomes Alpananda and that is not acceptable at all. So, this is what Advaita Vedanta says that there was no Jeevatma. To think that there is a Jeevatma is a mistaken notion. There is no real Srishti. There is only seeming Srishti and that is what is called Vivartavada. Therefore, this separation between Jeevatma and Brahman is only a notion, a seeming separation but actually nothing has happened. No separation has ever taken place. But if you think the separation actually happened, then what happens? It upsets a fundamental law, that is one loses its true nature. And why do we think that we are separate from Brahman? Because of Maya Shakti. That is why the example, the analogy of dream is very important. So according to Advaita, there is no Srishti, there is no Prapancha, there is no Jeeva. It is all seeming only. So that is what Gaudapada is going to elaborate a little bit further and he uses beautiful logic in Karika number 20.
māyayā bhidyate hyetannānyathā'jaṃ kathañcana
tattvato bhidyamāne hi martyatāmamṛtaṃ vrajet
If you are reading the Sanskrit, at the end, if there is an exclamation mark, you have to forget about it. So, you have to say it is a question mark. What does it mean?
Those who are called Vaadis, Vaadi means opposite parties, the dualists. So Advaitin stands alone and whoever is opposing him is called Dvaitin. And whoever is opposing Dvaitin is called Advaitin. These dualists, Dvaitins, they contend. Contend means not merely arguing. They firmly believe in it and that's why they say where does God live? In Vaikuntha. So, we will go to Vaikuntha if we do certain things which God commanded us to do, we will be going to Him. And slowly there also, Vaikuntha also, four stages are there. First is Salokya. We enter into the same world. Somehow, we get a visa permit and enter into Vaikuntha Loka. And then a long distance is there. So slowly, slowly, we are approaching. There also, I am guessing, there will be terrible traffic jam. So many devotees eating Tirupati Laddus must have reached earlier because Tirupati Laddu definitely will take him to Vaikuntha sooner than expected. So, they are jostling with each other to get near. Somehow this person pushes everybody aside and goes near. This is called Samipya. And after some time, he goes on seeing the Divine Lord. He doesn't see anything else, and he sees, he hears, he meditates. Slowly like an insect becoming a bee, slowly this person, his form is changed. I am also like same form, like Bhagawan. This is called Sarupya. And this is only a very near stage. But there is another stage. Still separation is there. Then he goes nearer. And this is called Sayujya. Permanently he will be there with God. But like Advaitins, like a drop of water mixing with water he doesn't mix like that. It will be like oil and water. A small drop of oil in a vast ocean. But they become very friendly, and he will be going on enjoying the Divine Lord. This is more or less how Advaitin tries to ridicule the Vaishnavas, Dvaitin's idea of Mukti, Moksha. Even Sayujya, there is a separation. There is real separation according to Dvaita Adi. But according to Ramanuja, it is, you become a small part of the whole. You are the whole. That is what is,
Deha Budhya Dasaha Jeeva Budhya Tudhamsakaha
Atma Budhya Tumewaha Sarvadinaha
The disputants contend that ever unborn changeless entity or Atman or Brahman undergoes a change. Now, Gaudapada poses a question. How could an entity whose nature is changeless and immortal partake of the nature of the immortal? Mortal means what? It has changed its nature. Secondly, that which is immortal has now become mortal. So, become a subject of time and space.
Ajatah Amrutah Bhavah Martyatah Kathameshati
He is asking, Martyatah means mortality. Ajatah, that which can never be born is never born and whose nature is Amrutah Bhavah, immortality, whose nature is of immortality. Katham Martyatah Meshati, how can it become mortal? How can it change? That is to say it is not possible. He wants to fortify this argument. How we are going to see it. So, what is this? How can the unborn immortal reality indeed undergo mortality? There are various theological and philosophical systems which look upon the Paramatma as a person in some other loka. Because person means he must be residing somewhere and that is why they call it Vaikuntha. So, the goal is to go to Vaikuntha or Kingdom of Heaven, etc. How can one undivided Paramatma at all get divided into the form of infinite number of Jeevas and Jagat? Very interesting point is, if Bhagawan is infinite, then Srishti also must be infinite. And in Srishti, we get creatures with life, living and non-living. So, both are infinite. Living creatures are also infinite and non-living created things are also infinite. Earlier, we have seen what is called Ghatakasha and Mahakasha as if with the birth of the pot, pot space is born. Really, pot space is neither born nor does it get destroyed. It is only from the viewpoint of the pot that we think something is born and something is gone. So, that is the point. No, Paramatma can never become Jeevatma. So, this is a very important verse for all of us.
What is Gaudapada's argument? We can imagine the essential nature of a thing can never be lost. It will never be lost. Sri Ramkrishna gives a beautiful example. Supposing there is fire. What is the nature of the fire? Heat and light. So, you say fire is there but Thanda Ho Gaya. We say Thanda Ho Gaya. What does it mean? It means the manifestation of fire because of some firewood, etc. That firewood is consumed. The fire is not seen but that is not changing the fire. Not only that, even if you accept the view, sparks are fire. There are some people whose imagination goes awry, and they say fire and its sparks, Agni and vispulingas. There are some people who think manifestation of the fire.But one thing is there. Even a spark exactly is having the same nature, but the spark is because of the material through which fire is manifesting. It is nothing but fire. There is nothing called small fire, big fire, hot fire. We always say every day we are using we control the temperature of your cooking gas by reducing the gas. So, if it is very small, then the heat is less. If you increase the flow of gas, it will be more hot. Similarly, you go on putting water, water becomes very hot. So, water can be cold. Water becomes hot. Again, it becomes cold because the heat is not the intrinsic nature of water. It is only borrowed thing. Whatever is borrowed is going to disappear. So as soon as you remove the fire, the water becomes its natural temperature. As it becomes cold, even to say water is cold is not acceptable. Water is hot, not acceptable. Water is water. But if it is very cold, it takes the shape of ice. If it is very hot, it changes its shape into vapour. These are the three states of water. But the essential nature of the water is never changed. What is this change? Due to circumstances. Heat and cold. But the nature of the water cannot be changed. The whiteness of milk cannot be separated. So, the heat and light nature of the fire can never be separated. The sun's light can never be separated from the sun. This is our logic. So, what is essential nature? Very important. We discussed it many times. I also explained many times. Whatever cannot be taken away from a thing, whatever remains constantly, eternally as the nature of a thing, that is called its essential nature. What is the essential nature of fire? Heat and light. What is the essential nature of water? Wetness. So, what is the nature of sun's rays? Light and heat also, of course. So, you can never separate. You cannot cut it. You cannot change it. You cannot take it away. What is the nature of a sweet? To be sweet. If you take away that sweetness from a sweet, then it is like taking away the change. Then do you call it sweet? No, you cannot call it sweet. Not that the sweet has ever lost. The moment you take its sweetness, you cannot call it sweet. You have to call it either salty or sourish, whatever it is named. That means we are not talking about sweet, we are talking about something else.
So, what is the point? Essential nature is that without which a thing cannot be what it is. You take away the wood from the furniture, then it cannot be furniture. Take away the goldness from ornament, it cannot be the ornament. Take away the clay from the pot, the pot cannot remain. But so long as the pot is there, clayness will be there. So long as there is an ornament, goldness will be there. So long as there is furniture, woodness will be there. So, what is the point? The essential nature is that without which a thing cannot be called by its name. I hope this point is very clear.
So, the Upanishads are going to teach. What are they going to teach? All Upanishads teach only one thing. What is the nature of the Atman, Brahman? Is it called Jeevatma? Is it called Paramatma? So, the Upanishads teach that the intrinsic nature of the Atman is eternal, it is infinite, and it is immortal. So, that is its nature. Can you change it? No, it cannot be changed. So, what is this Jeevatma? Jeevatma, you have given the name Jeevatma to that Paramatma when you are looking at that Paramatma through the prism of this body and mind. You are talking about the body and mind actually. You are not talking about the Paramatma. So, thus the immortal cannot become mortal. Not only that, the opposite is also true. If the nature of anything created is mortal and it is mortal, mortal means continuously changing, at some point we hope the eternally changeable nature of mortality can be changed into non-changing immortality. That is also not possible. So, either way it is impossible. So, the body and mind can never become immortal. The Atman can never become the mortal. Naturally, the question comes if this is true, then what is it we are attending this class? Why are you attending the class? Ultimately, to understand I need not have attended, I should not attend, there was no necessity.
Remember the story, a man thought he has lost his specs. He ran 3 miles at night, knocked at the door of his friend and the friend asked him what brings you at night? He said, I lost my specs. Then the friend laughed and said this fellow cannot see anything without specs. Such was his myopia. Myopia means maya-opia. So, he cannot see anything. So, the friend asked, how could you run? How could you see the path? Yes, I saw crystal clearly. How could you see? Oh, all the time specs are on my head. So, he thanks and goes back. Now, this is a story, analogy. After that, the real question comes. Was it necessary for the person to run 3 miles at night? The usual answer is no, because he has not lost anything. But the running is necessary to know that running is not necessary. Running is necessary to know running was unnecessary. When does the person come to know that running was unnecessary? Only after the running is done. When do we come to know that sadhana is unnecessary? After doing sadhana only.
So, what shall we do? He says, now this is what Advaita is teaching. Your experience is you’re a Jeeva. Scriptures tell, yes, yes, you are a Jeeva. No doubt about it. We confirm. You do this then you will become Atman by doing spiritual by doing something. That something is called sadhana. That is what he says. Remember the story of Sri Ramakrishna. There was a farmer and he was an Advaitin. Remember, he was an Advaitin, not a Dvaitin. And he believed the whole world is Mithya, appearance only. So, he had only one son and that son died. When his wife questioned him, he replied, yesterday night I dreamt that I was a king. I had seven beautiful princesses. The story doesn't tell us this farmer being a very wise man did not address his wife and said there is absolutely no comparison between my queen and yourself. I had seven beautiful princesses and they were so talented, so beautiful unlike this monkey-faced one fellow. And when I woke up and they all are completely dead. I lost all of them and it is true. So long as we are in the dream we can't call it dream. We only call it waking state. So, whatever we lose in the waking state, we call it loss. Therefore, only when we come to the waking state, we accept the fact we have not lost anything. It was my imagination. But Gaudapada teaches us a great valuable lesson. What is that lesson? The lesson is it is true, but the reverse also is true. Whatever we think is real in the waking state becomes like a dream, unreality, so long as we are in the dream. When we wake up, dream is unreal. When we are in the dream, waking state is unreal. That is a very important point in case you have not grasped it.
So, we know the incident. One devotee called Mani Malik comes. He lost his son. Sri Ramkrishna suddenly sings a song. Jeev sajo samara Death has surrounded you. So, so long as we think, we have to surrender and we have to cognize the fact of birth, growth. Just as we accept happily birth and growth, we also have to accept happily what is called youth and there is no controversy there. But after that controversy comes. We don't accept middle age. Somehow grumblingly we accept then old age much less and death even much less. But we have to know that if as a child I died, as an adolescent I died, as a youth I died, as a middle-class, middle-aged person I died. And this old age person also definitely will die. And the fun is even a hundred-year-old person say, I know death will come, but not now. Not now is the problem.
So, Gaudapada proceeds there. He says something whose nature is essential nature. That essential nature can never be separated from a thing. A thing is what it is because of that essential nature, and nobody can change it. Even God cannot change. That's why, can God kill me? No, He cannot kill me. What can He kill? What is killable, He can kill. What is killable? My body is killable. My mind is killable. My stupid ideas are killable. And all those things, any idea that even the idea of Advaita is killable also. All those things He can kill. But not really me. Me means Atma. That is why you see in the Puranas in Ugra Narasimha, God in the form of ferocious lion man comes and kills so called Hiranyakashipu. What does the Puranas say? A Jyoti came and merged in Bhagavan Narasimha indicating that the so called Ajnana has become Jnana and the realisation came, I am Brahma. That is what He says.
In the 21st verse what is he telling?
na bhavatyamṛtaṃ martyaṃ na martyamamṛtaṃ tathā
prakṛteranyathābhāvo na kathaṃcidbhaviṣyati
This is the logic Gaudapada is striving to put it into our minds all the time. Amrutam, Immortality Martyam na bhavati, cannot become mortal. Nor Martyam amrutam tatha. What is mortal can never become immortal. And what is the conclusion? Prakruteh anyatha bhavaha. Prakruteh means the essential nature of anything. So, anyatha bhavaha means deviating from its essential nature. Kathanchit bhavishyati. Whatever we do it is not possible to do it. That means Paramatma has never become Jeevatma. Jeevatma cannot also become Paramatma. Then what happens? Our idea that I am a Jeeva. Remember our idea, our thought, our chitta vritti, I am a Jeeva, I am limited, I am bound, I am a samsara, is a vritti, a thought. Similarly, naturally the idea comes. Is it possible for me to get out of this what is called limitation? Very interesting point is if somebody is very happy and because of this limitation would he like to get rid of limitation? What am I talking about? Suppose somebody's body is very healthy. Body is a limitation. But he is very healthy, he can eat nicely, he can enjoy, digest and he can defeat anybody, he is very strong. He has got very a beautiful wife. A lady has got beautiful rich husband. I don't know whether women like rich husbands or beautiful husbands If there is a competition between beauty and richness. I leave it to you to think about it. You are quite capable of thinking about it. Man's view is different, woman's view is different. So, the world will never become immortal. That means Jeevatma is never going to become immortal and Brahman has never become Jeevatma. It is impossible for Brahman to become mortal. It is impossible for Jeeva to become immortal. All this time we thought by hearing, attending your classes we will attain Moksha. But now after so much of torture you are telling that it is impossible for us as Jeevas to get Moksha. No, no, what I mean is, you were always immortal. You thought you were not immortal. Through sadhana you come to know that I was never mortal. I thought I was mortal but now I know. The sadhana is to remove the wrong notion that I thought I am mortal and through sadhana I will become immortal. It is this important point that I want to do sadhana because I am a happy person, but I am thinking I am an unhappy person like in a dream somebody is dragging me and beating me black and blue etc. But when I wake up, what do I do? I simply get out of that thought. That thought comes to an end that I was very unhappy. Now I find no change has taken place, nobody has taken me anywhere. The same thing happens when a person has God realization. I was God, I am God, I will be God. Never have I become anything else other than being God. But the notion came I was born, so that notion, wrong notion. So right notion disappeared, wrong notion has come. Wrong notion disappears, right notion comes. It is a change in thought and nothing else. And that is good enough for us. Because what is it we want? We don't want to be having death, we don't want to be ignorant, we don't want to be suffering. And to be immortal to be all-knowing and to be eternally happy, infinitely happy is my nature. Once I come to know the purpose is served whether I go to Vaikuntha or whether I attain Moksha by claiming that I am Brahman. The result is exactly the same. These quarrels are only quarrels between two types of thoughts, different types of thoughts like our quarrelling in the dream state. The reality is it is not possible Brahman has never become anything, he cannot become and this drishti is only a notion a thought. And how did it come? Books have been written about it but that's not necessary for us. All that we need to know is that I was Brahman, I am Brahman, I will be Brahman. Somehow the notion came I am not Brahman. And through Sadhana, with the grace of Guru and God I have gotten rid of that notion that I am not Brahman. But now I realise I was, I am, I will ever be Brahman. This is what Gaudapada wants to convey in this 21st.