Mandukya Karika Lecture 130 on 22-November-2023

Full Transcript (Not Corrected)

So, we have entered into the very beautiful teaching of Advaita Vedanta, especially the topic of causality. Let's briefly recollect what we have been discussing earlier. This world that we are experiencing, we experience it through our body and mind, especially through the mind and the material with which this mind is made. It is called time, space, and causation. It is like looking through coloured glass. As soon as we look through coloured glass, whether the object we are looking at is coloured or not, it appears to be coloured only.

So, what does time, space, and causation mean? It means duality. It means manifoldness. 'I am separate, everything else is separate.' That is why Vedanta, for our convenience, divided all our experiences into two classes: the subject and the object. The subject is one; everything else is manifold, uncountable, almost infinite—not really infinite, but manifold. Then, as soon as we look at something, a relationship comes. Causality is nothing but a relationship. Everything we see—two friends walking together jovially, there is a relationship. And what is the relationship here? Jovial relationship. Two enemies glaring at each other, seeking an opportunity to annihilate each other. So, what is the causality here? It is they hate each other, dvesha. In the first example, two friends, raga. So, we see causality. Two people are so happy, so they must be very near, loving, attached to each other.

So, whatever object, a person is having a beautiful car. So, what is the relationship? Owner and owned. Like this, everything, where there are two, where there are many, relationship is there. That is why philosophy uses a very technical word, what we call the world, jagat. In this philosophical language, it is called the world of relationships. You cannot imagine a subject without an object. Remove the object, the subject disappears. Remove the subject, the object disappears. So, everything is either divided or unified, either harmonious or inharmonious. A relationship is there. One of the most important ideas of a relationship is called the creator created. This is the topic, the subject which we have been trying to explore.

So many philosophers, they have tremendous differences of opinion with regard to this causality. If it is Advaita, a pure monistic philosophy, non-duality, since there is only one, this is a very, very important point. Many times we use it. If there is one, there cannot be any relationship. At least, minimum, there should be two objects—father and son, mother and daughter, brother and sister, etc. Subject and object, like that. So, what is called dualistic religions, dvaita, visishtadvaita, and everything that doesn't accept advaita is called dvaita. They have some internal differences, but they are all called dualistic philosophies. And all dualistic philosophies have a monotheistic view. What is the monotheistic view? This is, really speaking, a side topic, but it is very important. As some very intelligent philosophers have discussed very nicely, all wars, everything, killing each other, is only because of monotheism. Why is it so? Because some people believe, and they believe without reason. Rationality is less, fanatical belief is more; that's why they are called fanatics.

The idea of God I have is superior to the idea of God you have. And so, my God should be worshipped by you, so I will convert you into my opinion. This is called fanaticism. This is what Sri Ramakrishna had incarnated to remove that every type of belief, provided a person is sincere, is extremely helpful. Just like a child, he can only crawl at first, then with the help of a wall, or somebody holding the hand of a mother, or somebody grown up, slowly, slowly takes faltering steps. And then he grows up, learns how to balance, and slowly walks without any help. And then he starts running, jumping, overcoming obstacles, so many things he can do.

So, if anybody is fanatical enough to say that a child is growing up wrong because he is holding on to things, and he should never use that one. This stupid person who has such claims has forgotten that he or she, themselves, himself or herself, have grown up exactly in the same way. So, it is a continuous growth. So, dvaita to visishtadvaita, visishtadvaita to dvaita, advaita to, complete, no discussion, no philosophy. Because, the very curious thing is, even advaita is a product of the mind. Really speaking, the absolute cannot be thought.

Mano vacha agocharam

yato vacho nivartante

namo namo prabhu vakyamana ateta, etc.

So, we forget, we tend to forget. So, causality works only, first of all, only in dualistic religions. We see everything in this world has a cause. Somebody has a car. So, there must be a creator of a car. It can be Toyota, it can be Ambassador, it can be Mitsubishi, whatever it is, Cadillac, whatever it is. Somebody is the creator. Something is created. Whether it is a mobile, whether it is a laptop, iPad, anything, there is a causal relationship is there. Food is cooked and there is a material that is cookable, and a person takes that one and then cooks it, makes it fit for us to eat. Everywhere there are two, there is a causal relationship.

Now, Gaudapada, representing the highest thought of Advaita Vedanta, wants to make it clear. He was not a fanatic. Advaitins can never be fanatics. We have seen earlier that Advaitin has no quarrel. He declared clearly, we have no quarrel with anybody. Let the Satkaryavadins, Asatkaryavadins, that means dualists, let them quarrel with themselves. We have no quarrel. Because we know every stage of thought is a process of growing first, then outgrowing, a lower stage, entering into a higher stage. And when that person grows, then that lower stage is discarded until we reach that which is unknowable, unthinkable, inexperienceable, etc.

So, when there is something, even to say one is a marvellous product of rationality, don't say it is one. Ishwara is one. Oneness means, how do you know what is one? Because you have the idea, if two objects are there, that is two, more than two, it is three, four, etc. But here there is only one. It is only against the idea; the opposite of many-ness is called one. And whether I call it one or many, still I am in the causal world only.

So, everything in this world is causal. When we say Advaita, that is why the word Advaita is a negative prefix, na-dvaita. Instead of saying oneness, it says non-reality. Because just now we are discussing, the moment you say one, you are aware of two or more than two. No, this is something which cannot be described. Non-reality can never be described. But something that cannot be described, something that is not experienceable is called unmanifest. And just because something is non-experienceable, it does not prove that it doesn't exist. So many things which we don't experience, but we don't say that they do not exist.

The highest manifestation of existence is none other than me. And if I say I am Brahman, really speaking, that falls under duality only. Because who is going to say I am Brahman? Why should I say? Because I see another fellow whom I think is an ignorant fellow. And if I see another ignorant person, I am much more ignorant than that person. At least he knows he is not an ignorant person. He doesn't say I am ignorant. But I am saying you are ignorant; I am a knowledgeable person. This is also to deny pure non-duality, Advaita. A person's mind is not there, so the speech is not there, nothing is there, expressionless. Even maunam, that is also duality only. So to say I am maunam, observing maunam because you are thinking in your mind, something I am superior, these fellows are babblers, but I am a mauni. Even that is also, whatever we do through the body, through the mind, is equally false.

And every day we experience. The simplest way of understanding this is deep sleep. Do you think that I am not in the waking state? Do you think that I am not in the dream state? At least do you say I am in the deep sleep state? Not to be aware of all these things, but awareness, pure awareness. Identifying with pure awareness, I am. Even in the deep sleep state, you cannot do anything, you cannot say. Only upon waking up, then duality becomes more pronounced and then only we can express it. This is the idea Gaudapada wants to say. Since there is no creation at all, all srishti vadas are irrelevant. So the whole debate is what we are experiencing. Experiencing means experiencer-experienced duality. It is all mithya; it is not satyam. But every mithya is possible only when there is the substratum of satyam.

So until now, this is what we are discussing. In our last class, I have stopped Gaudapada while telling this 40th shloka. He says there are only two possibilities in the realm of rationality, duality. What is that? Ultimately, we have to transcend even this duality of our concept of reality. What a mind-boggling idea!

We are talking our heads off about reality. What is reality? What is not reality? Even this Gaudapada is talking about what is real and what is unreal. Both are unreal from the highest standpoint. But expression is needed for the sake of teaching. And that is what a muni emphasizes. I am not speaking; don't take it. This is what Swami Vivekananda expressed with such profound depth. Everything in this world has become polluted excepting Brahman. Now some Prabuddhas are there. They will get doubt. Swami Vivekananda used the word Brahman is unpollutable. So since it came from his mouth, the word Brahman has become polluted or not? Definitely it is polluted. Because if an Englishman who doesn't know Sanskrit or any Indian language, if he says instead of Brahman, Braman, how will you understand? So what is meant is to express, to convey, to teach. We necessarily have to use dualistic language. But we must be aware this is a dualistic language. It is only as a pointer, as a sign, as a linga, we call it. Sign, walk that way. We always have to keep that in mind. And that is what Gaudapada wants to say.

There are only two possibilities are there. What is it? Either something is real or something is not real. Now very fine intellect is necessary to understand this concept of real and unreal. Just now I reminded you, the moment we say real, we have the opposite idea of what is unreal. So when we are given the example of the rope and the snake, immediately this we have to understand. The rope is real and the snake is unreal. But if you go into advanced Vedanta, the rope is also as unreal as the snake itself. But we are not going that far now. So for the sake of illustrating and every illustration is for the sake of clarifying. Whatever we think, whatever we speak, it all falls under dualism only. Keep this in the background.

So Gaudapada tells two things. What is it? If you are accepting causality, then it implies two things. Something is the creator, something is the created. So there is a creator, there is a created, and there is a relationship of causality. The creator is the cause, created is the effect. Now there are two possibilities. If we take ultimately two concepts, reality and unreality. That is what he wants to clarify. I know this talk is sometimes very confusing. Confusing only because we have not developed deep thought. So Gaudapada says, 'Oh, ignorant man, you have only two options.' What is it? The real cannot produce real. The real cannot be the cause of the real. Real cannot be the cause of the unreal. The unreal cannot be the cause of the unreal. And the unreal also cannot be the cause of the real. The whole theory of causation is completely smashed.

Very briefly, we will discuss about it. Because the future Karikas are only to elaborate, to make it a little more clear. Supposing there is reality. It cannot produce reality. Why? Because where is the need? A pot cannot produce another pot. Because the pot is already there. So the pot cannot produce non-pot. Because the pot, a real something, can never produce unreal.

Now I can only hint at it. You will have to understand. If you think there is a real pot. One real pot cannot produce another real pot. Because the pot does not come from the pot. If you think the pot comes from the pot, it means you have gone to pot. So the pot cannot produce a real pot. Can it produce an unreal pot? No, that is not possible.

Similarly, suppose there is an unreal pot. Means what? A pot that does not exist. So if there is something non-existing, it cannot produce anything existing. Out of nothing, something cannot come. Even nothing can come. Because it is an illusion. So out of non-existence, something, an illusory something. For example, a magician can produce an illusory ladder and he can climb also. But that illusory ladder cannot produce another illusory ladder. Nor much less a real ladder. Because an illusory something does not exist at all.

So what are the arguments? The real need not produce anything because that is real. The unreal cannot produce because it does not exist. An existing thing cannot produce another existing thing. A non-existing thing cannot produce another non-existing thing. Because it is non-existent. To produce something, it must be existent. I hope I am not confusing you too much. These are the arguments.

The unreal cannot have the unreal as its cause. Nor can the real be produced from the unreal. The real cannot be the cause of the real. And it is much more impossible for the real to be the cause of the unreal. This is what we have been talking about in our last class.

नास्त्यसद्धेतुकमसत् सदसद्धेतुकं तथा ।

सच्च सद्धेतुकं नास्ति सद्धेतुकमसत्कुतः ॥ ४० ॥

nāstyasaddhetukamasat sadasaddhetukaṃ tathā |

sacca saddhetukaṃ nāsti saddhetukamasatkutaḥ || 40 ||

40. The unreal cannot have the unreal as its cause, nor can the real be produced from the unreal. The real cannot be the cause of the real. And it is much more impossible for the real to be the cause of the unreal.

Do not worry about these Sanskrit words. With this background, we will move to the Karika 41.

If you don't understand, it is not really very important. But why this concept of causality is taught in the scriptures? Because every scripture tells that Ishwara is the Srishti Karta. The world is from Ishwara. Panchabhutas, Panchatanmatras, are the real material. Out of which this entire body-mind complex has been made.

Again and again and again, practically in every Upanishad. The whole of the Aitareya Upanishad is nothing but talking about how this comes. And in Kaivalya Upanishad also, we have seen this. Uma Sahayam, Parameshwaram, Trinetram, Nelakantam, etc. And if you look at Mother Kali, she is nothing but the manifestation of the world. Varahasta, Abhayahasta, and Layahasta. Srishti, Sthiti, Vinashanam, Shakti, Bhute, Sanatan.

So in the 41st, the same thing is continued.

विपर्यासाद्यथा जाग्रदचिन्त्यान्भूतवत्स्पृशेत् ।

तथा स्वप्ने विपर्यासात् धर्मास्तत्रैव पश्यति ॥ ४१ ॥

viparyāsādyathā jāgradacintyānbhūtavatspṛśet |

tathā svapne viparyāsāt dharmāstatraiva paśyati || 41 ||

41. As one in the waking state, through false knowledge, handles, as real, objects whose nature cannot be described; similarly; in dream also, one perceives, through false knowledge, objects whose existence is possible in that condition alone.

Again and again, every Advaitin gives the best possible example to point out in the right direction of right understanding is this relationship between the waking and the dream state. So what does this 41st mean? As one in the waking state, which is we call Jagratavasta, through false knowledge, handles as real objects whose nature cannot be described. Similarly, in the dream also, one perceives through false knowledge, objects whose existence is possible in that condition alone.

Now to understand this, first I will give you one example, which is applicable to both the waking as well as the dream state. Now, we can mistake many times. Perhaps you met a person after a long time, and the resemblance of this person to one whom you knew many, many years back, maybe your childhood companion. Immediately, it reminds you of the exact same face cut, etc. And then you are so happy, you are elated, excited, run towards that person, 'Are you so and so?' That person looks blank and says, 'What are you talking about? My name is different, I am a different person, perhaps you are mistaking me for somebody else.'

But the familiar example is under semi-darkness, we mistake, we see a snake. Only when light is brought, we know. Now, what is Gaudapada driving at? He says, this mistaking something as something else, this is called Adhyasa, superimposition, it is inexplicable. You can't explain why it takes place. How it takes place, yes. But why it takes place, no. You cannot give any explanation. But another example I gave you, you are walking at night by a crematorium, and suddenly the shadow of a swaying branch, suddenly there will be a huge ghost laughing at you. And just the first moment of mistake creates a real ghost, and it is sneering at you, and it is running towards you, and your imagination also runs, riot. And then you are terrified, and the more terrified, the more real it becomes. And then somehow you reach home, and you understand, 'Oh my God, I escaped that ghost.' And you go to sleep, and exactly you see the same ghost chasing you in the darkness, in the dream also.

So in the dream, you are seeing, you are trying to escape, and it is overtaking you, caught you by the scruff of your neck, and it is shaking you like anything, and then it has dropped you, and you fell down from your bed, you wake up, 'Ah, what a relief. This is nothing but a dream.' What is the point? The point is, how it takes place, this is a description of what we just now taught. But why it takes place, it is neither real nor unreal. This is called Mithya. What is Mithya? You cannot say it is unreal. Why? Because it is negated when, after some time, after seeing a snake, you are quaking, shaking, making noise, somebody brings a light, and immediately you see the rope, and everything, all the effects will be gone.

So you cannot say it is real because the definition of reality is whatever never changes, that is real. But at the same time, you cannot say it is unreal also. Why? Because if there is something unreal, unreal means non-existing, non-existing means you don't see any snake at all, you neither see the rope nor see the snake. This marvellous analysis of our day-to-day mistaken experiences is astounding how our ancestors thought about it.

So if it is clear light, you don't mistake, you see the rope. If it is deep darkness, you don't see the rope also; hence, you cannot have superimposition also, therefore you have nothing, blissfully you carry on. It is only when there is semi-darkness, this problem arises. So what is Mithya? That which is neither real nor unreal, neither Sat, Asadbhyam, Vilakshanaha, as the Vedanta Sara or Tatvabodha puts it. If it is unreal, we can never experience. If it is real, it should always be like that, but our perception, our experience of a snake is only temporary for some time, then it is negated, it is sublated, then we see the rope and this is what Gaudapada wants to drive at.

So what is the point here? Very subtle reasoning power, that even in the waking state, whatever we experience need not be absolutely real. So like that, whatever we see, another example comes to my mind, in the waking state, we see a person walking, we see a bird flying, and then you go to sleep, these two things are put together, you see a person, suddenly the wings of the bird are attached to that person and he is flapping his wings and he is hovering above your house and laughing at you, sneering at you, and you experience. And then you are wondering, how did this fellow have the ability to fly? In fact, many of us have also dreamt like that. I myself dreamt quite a number of times that I am hovering above my house and looking here and there. What freedom! The moment thought comes, I want to say, I find myself there. And this is also not reality. Therefore, what is wanted, in fact, you know, very interesting, when the Wright brothers were experimenting with these aeroplanes, they tied themselves with huge flaps and they started jumping from a hilltop and then flapping the wings, trying to fly like a bird. And that is how they have succeeded. Ultimately, how many accidents they had, people don't understand. Slowly, other people took it up from there and they created an engine and it overcame the force of gravity. And slowly now, they have discovered even satellites which surpass the speed of sound. So, they are also trying to put, as France had created an aeroplane many years back, of course, it had an accident, it could reach Paris to New York in less than 3 hours' time. So, what is meant is that weird things, things which we know very well cannot exist, are experienceable, but whatever is experienceable need not be taken as real.

So, this is the explanation that Gaudapada wants to say in this 41. As one in the waking state, through false knowledge, handles as real objects whose nature can never be described. For example, what are the characteristics of the Mithya snake? But don't use the word Mithya while experiencing the snake. Only subsequently, when the rope is seen in the light from the viewpoint of the rope, this snake is what we call Mithya. But temporarily it is there and then it disappears. Whatever is temporarily existing is Mithya. This definition we must always keep in mind.

So, a baby is born and after some time, the baby can die, young man can die, old man can die. So, that which exists temporarily for a moment, for 100 years, for 5000 years, it is all Mithya. Whatever is everlasting, that means beyond time, that means beyond change, that alone is called Sathyam, which is so beautifully expressed. Trikala Abadhitam Sathyam. That which falls within time, within space, within causation. In fact, causation means the expression of time. So, the curd was not there before and we put something in the milk, warm milk, and after a few hours, it transfers. There was a beginning of the process of curdling and there is an end. And so, the milk has become transformed and that is the effect of time, space, and causation. What is space here? That is, if you want to make this milk in Iceland, you have to adopt some other method. If we want to do it in Chennai, no problem at all. Now, of course, nowadays, they have created some machines. So, it maintains a kind of flask, curd-making machines. You put this curd seed and then for a few hours, because it maintains an unvarying temperature, you can get beautiful curds out of it if the external temperature is not convenient for us, suitable for us. Man can discover many things.

So, this verse, Shankara says, intends to remove the slightest possibility of the causal relation between the waking and dream state. That means, from the Advaitic point of view, absolutely, there is no causal relationship. Why? Because, remember, in our last class, even Vedanta claims, whatever we experience in the waking state alone is dreamt of with some combinations. Just as I gave the example, we see a man, we see a bird, and in a dream, we make a khichdi, and then a man is flying. So, this is the causal relationship. Waking, samskara is the cause and dream object is the effect. There is no such relationship because both are false. Why are both false? And Gaudapadacharya wants to experience this. As soon as a person wakes up, he knows very clearly that whatever the person experiences in the dream state, many verses we have seen, he has gone to America and a huge elephant entered into his tiniest room. So, time and space cannot have any relationship with what he was experiencing. So, by that, dream is proved unreal. What about waking? Because the same dream continues. When the dream is temporary, when an experience is very temporary, that is what we call a dream. When the same experience continues as it were, that is what we call waking state. So, waking state also is equally unreal. What is the logic? Anything that is bound by time and space and causation is unreal. Anything that is temporary is unreal. Anything that is changing is unreal. Anything that depends. Now, in this case, our consciousness, awareness, is the one which experiences both the waking and dream. If we are not conscious, for example, a person in a coma neither experiences a waking state nor a dream state. So, the waking awareness and the dream awareness, awareness is common. And this awareness functions through the mind. So, Gaudapada's conclusion is, why do we say both are equally unreal? Because anything that is experienced by the mind is unreal. Anything that is experienced, experienceable by the mind, through the medium of the mind, is Mithya, unreal. Mithya means unreal. But we should never forget the fundamental principle. A Mithya must have a substratum and that substratum is called Sathyam. Never forget. Without Sathyam, without a real rope, for example, there can be no illusion of a snake at all. Therefore, Shankaracharya commenting says, from the Paramarthika view, from the viewpoint of Brahman, which is unchanging, beyond time, waking state is also unreal. But from the waking state point, dream also is unreal.

Two things really are unreal, even from the waking state point of view. What are the two things? The first thing is a dream. We know that. The second thing is mistaking somebody for somebody else, mistaking a rope for a snake, etc. And mistaking so many Adhyasas. I quoted earlier and it bears some truth. This is called Shobhana Adhyasa. What is it? We see a mirage, and we see silver in a silver shell, which is shining like burnished silver, especially when the sunlight falls upon the shell. It has a coating and it shines. Immediately, it reminds us of silver, and then we think, before anybody can grab it, I will go and grab it. Nobody can explain this. This is one. So a dream is mistaking something which we experience in the waking state, but seeing a mirage, etc. This is called Artha Adhyasa. A mistake in our mind is called Jnana Adhyasa. And there is something called Shobhana Adhyasa, that is the illusion of happiness. What is it? If I can marry this man, my whole life I will be like a divine damsel. Damsel and damness have got a very close connection. After marriage only, the girl wakes up and says, 'What a mistake I have committed.' Anyway, you must have noticed, I changed a little bit. Instead of man, woman. These are important points. And what we want to say. What is Mithya? If it is really existent, it cannot cease to exist. And if it is non-existent, it cannot appear as existing. This is called Anirvachaniya. Nirvachana means definition. Anirvachaniya means impossible to define. And that is what is called Mithya. Sat-Asadbhyam-Vilakshana-Mithya. We will go to the next Karika.

उपलम्भात्समाचारात् अस्तिवस्तुत्ववादिनाम् ।

जातिस्तु देशिता बुद्धैर् अजातेस्त्रसतां सदा ॥ ४२ ॥

upalambhātsamācārāt astivastutvavādinām |

jātistu deśitā buddhair ajātestrasatāṃ sadā || 42 ||

42. Wise men support causality only for the sake of those who, being afraid of absolute non-manifestation (of things), stick to the (apparent) reality of (external) objects on account of their perception (of such objects) and their faith in religious observances.

Very, very practical. This one we are coming to. Wise men support causality only for the sake of those who, being afraid of the absolute non-manifestation or non-creation, stick to the apparent reality of external objects, external world on account of their experience of such objects, and so they have deep faith in religious observances. This verse, this Karika, is very important. As we know, the Vedas are divided into three parts actually, though only two parts are taught. The first is called Karma Kanda, rituals. The second is called Upasana Kanda. It comes both in Karma Kanda as well as in Jnana Kanda. And the third is Jnana Kanda. And you must have understood this thing by now.

Now what is important here, and that is very important for us to understand. There are some people who think this world is still real. They may go to an Advaitin Guru and they have faith in the Guru. They accept Guruji, whatever you are teaching is absolutely right. It cannot be wrong. I have that faith. But at my present state of development, I am unable to understand. And if he is a wise Guru, not otherwise Guru, the Guru also will say, okay, now you stick to your rituals. And wherever there is a dualistic world, that means a sincere person who believes in the scriptures, he believes in causality. If I do this action, then this result will follow. This is called Karma Siddhanta. If I do this Yagna Yaga, I will go to Svargaloka. If 100 Yagnas are done, I will go to Brahmaloka. Is it unreal? No. In the unreal world, this is a reality. Karma Siddhanta works in the unreal world to the hilt, 100%. If your donation is a rotten cucumber, you will get back two rotten cucumbers as your punya phala. But if you have sacrificed like Sibi, like Bali Chakravarti, you will get. Bali Chakravarti has sacrificed. That is why it is a true symbolic story of Bali. Bali means sacrifice. What did Bali do? In Vamana, Bhagavan himself had come and said, my child, you are not my child. You are me. You are myself. But to make him realize that, you give everything of yours. Three. Three things you give. You give me your gross body. You give me your subtle body. You give me your causal body. And when a Jeeva is deprived of these three bodies, that person's Jeevatva also disappears. He remains only completely as Brahman. This is the symbolism. And to seal, Bhagavan Vishnu puts His own footprints on the head of the Bali. And this is what we are all supposed to do. Tanu, Mana, Dhana, I and mine. Everything should be given up. This is the meaning of Homa. This is the meaning of Yagna. This is the meaning of Puja. This is the meaning of Karma Yoga, Shiva Jnana, Jiva Shiva. So, for the people who are not able to ascend to that level of understanding of Brahman, this world is accepted. But causality, the theory of causality is proposed. What for? God created. And there is an invariable relationship. Whatever is the cause must be the effect. And God is Amruta. And if God is the cause, and God is Amruta, what He created must be, the effect must be Amruta only. That is the meaning of Shrunvantu Vishwe Amrutasya Putraha from the viewpoint of causality. So, a wise Guru, scripture, never attacks the sincere aspirant. On the other hand, you are right. The world is real. Bhagavan is the creator. But you must understand, He can be only good. He can be only Sat. He can be only Chit. He can be only Ananda Swaroopa. So, since you are in effect, you are also existing Sat. You must be good. You must be wise. You must be Ananda. You must be happiness. Slowly, step by step, you will take, first Deva Loka, then Indra Loka, then Prajapati Loka, then Hiranyagarbha Loka, finally Brahma Loka, finally Brahmans Loka. Gradual evolution, God never denies. That is why, every deity that we see, we visit, we have got Vara, Abhaya. And then, on the left side, we forget, Srishti symbol, Stithi symbol, Laya symbol, we never look at it. That which is manifest, must become again, go out of existence, manifestation. That is what is practical Vedanta. So, this is what he wants to say.

In the 42nd verse, Karika, wise men support causality for those who are sincere but unable to grasp the idea of Brahman. Because they understand only the reality of the world—my body is real, my mind is real, the external world is real—they have to accept causality. The Sadguru acknowledges this and advises, "Now you worship, embrace Shiva Jnana, Jiva Shiva. Practice Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Raja Yoga, and Jnana Yoga. Gradually, you will reach a state when you will be ready.

Recalling Sri Ramakrishna's experience with Totapuri, who instructed him to rise above the mind, removing thoughts meant going beyond the mind. Initially, Sri Ramakrishna struggled, unable to dispel thoughts of his Vasana Swabhna, the Divine Mother as Saguna Brahma. Totapuri then imparted a lesson, and through the grace of the Divine Mother, Sri Ramakrishna transcended the mind, entering a state where there was no body or mind—akin to Nirvikalpa Samadhi.

The essence of the 42nd Karika is that scriptures and Sadgurus never teach beyond the comprehension of sincere Sadhakas. They encourage the acceptance of causality as real, acknowledging Srishti, Stithi, and Karma Siddhanta. The aspirant progresses from lower to higher states through practices like Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Raja Yoga, and Jnana Yoga. However, when one reaches the state of Brahmakara Vrutti, akin to Totapuri's teaching to Sri Ramakrishna, the guidance shifts toward going beyond the mind.

Advaita has no qualms with rituals, pujas, homas, or the existence of Deva Loka, Brahma Loka, and Prajapati Loka. As Ramana Bhagwan noted in response to queries about their existence, "If you think this world is real, then, as long as that world also is real."

I will conclude here, and I am open to any questions you may have.