Sarva Mangala Lecture 02 on 20-October-2019
Full Transcript (Corrected)
ॐ
जननीम् सारदाम् देविम् रामकृष्णं जगद्गुरुम् ।
पादपद्मे तयोः श्रित्वा प्रणमामि मुहरमुहुहु ।।
Oṃ Jananīm Sāradām Devīm Rāmakṛṣṇam Jagadgurum |
Pādapadme Tayoḥ Śritvā Praṇamāmi Muhurmuhuhu ||
We are discussing the third hymn “Sarva Maṅgala Māṅgalye”. I have already explained why these three verses from the Chaṇḍī have been incorporated into our daily evening vesper bhajans, and the concept is truly marvelous. Sarva Maṅgala Māṅgalye - whatever Mother does is auspicious. There is nothing inauspicious in this world, not even death. A tragedy occurred yesterday, in case you heard about it. Our maidservant, Padma, was electrocuted. Just as I finished the class and stepped out, the accident happened. She had gone to switch on the evening light near a pole where there was an electrical leak. She touched it with her bare hands, and that was it! She was gone. This accident took place inside the Āśhrama.
From a worldly point of view, everything is divided into “this is good” and “this is bad.” But from the highest Pāramārthika viewpoint, there is nothing that is Amaṅgalya (inauspicious). We have already discussed the reasons for this. The first reason is that if something were truly real,such as death—then it would not be Maṅgalya. But according to Vedānta, and even according to Dvaitins, anyone who believes in an afterlife holds a similar perspective. A simple example: a Christian believes that after death, they will go to the Kingdom of Heaven, while a Muslim believes they will go to Paradise. What does this belief really imply? Is one going to heaven with this physical body? No. The physical body does not go. And what would happen if it did? Suppose there is a seven-star hotel, perfectly neat and clean. If a buffalo enters after swimming in a sewage pool, would that be appropriate? Similarly, if someone were to enter heaven with this gross body, it would be just like that. Thus, there is no physical body in those higher realms, and according to such beliefs, the death of the physical body is inevitable. But apart from the body, there must be something that continues to heaven or hell, and that is called the Jīvātma.
That is why Śaṅkarācārya’s great penetrative intellect discovered this while defending the theory of superimposition. What is Adhyāsa (superimposition)? Adhyāsa refers to the false attribution of properties of one thing to another. In Advaita, it specifically denotes the superimposition of the transient, changing world and the individual self (Jīva) onto the unchanging, eternal Brahman. This is the core teaching of Śhaṅkarācārya. A snake is superimposed upon a rope "Rajju-Sarpa Bhrānti", the Rope-Snake illusion (this metaphor is used to illustrate how the world (Jagat) is superimposed upon the ultimate reality, Brahman, due to ignorance). In a dimly lit environment, a person sees a rope but mistakes it for a snake. This mis-perception creates fear and other reactions based on the belief that there is a real snake. However, upon closer examination or illumination, the person realizes that the "snake" was never there - it was only a rope all along. The snake was an illusion projected onto the rope due to ignorance. Similarly, just as the snake is falsely superimposed on the rope, the apparent multiplicity of the world and the individual self (Jīva) is superimposed on the singular, non-dual Brahman. So you are saying that upon Brahman, we are superimposing this body-mind and this world - but that is not true. If God truly created this world, then the contention is that the world must also be real. If the world is real, then the body is real. And if the body is real, then birth is real, growth is real, disease is real, old age is real, and ultimately, death is also real. Happiness is real, and unhappiness is also real. But what kind of God creates unhappiness? If the Kārya (effect) involves the experience of suffering, what should we conclude about the cause? He cannot be Ānanda Svarūpa (the very nature of bliss). Instead, He must be a mixture of both happiness and unhappiness. And a God who undergoes both happiness and unhappiness is no God at all - He would be worse than any ordinary human being.
So even from their own point of view, this aspect of superimposition is being accepted. In what way are they accepting superimposition? The very desire to go to heaven implies what? If one believes they are the body, then with the death of the body, they too must cease to exist. But that is not what they claim. They say, “You will go to heaven.” If you go to heaven, then what happens to the gross body? This implies that the body must be entirely different from you. You have only temporarily put it on, discarded it, and are now proceeding to heaven. This means that, at some level, you already have an idea that your real “me” is going to heaven. However, if you are asked right now what you are, how do you respond? Do you say that you are your real self (Jīvātma), which goes to heaven, or this particular physical body that you currently identify with? Do you see the logic? This physical body, which you now consider as yourself as "this is me" - is it not, then, a superimposition? You are projecting your real self onto it. This temporary gross body has nothing to do with you - just as the snake has nothing to do with the rope. The snake is not even a part of the rope; it is entirely different from it. How do we know this? As soon as the area is fully illumined with bright light, the illusion disappears. According to Vedānta, if this world were truly real, certain problems arise. One major problem is that Mokṣha would become impossible because reality is that which never changes. If the world were real, you would always exist here in this body, endlessly coming and going. But since you do not accept this yourself, then it must be only a transitory phenomenon which is appearing and disappearing. And whatever appears and disappears is called “temporary,” and whatever is temporary is called Mithyā. One should not misunderstand Mithyā. Mithyā does not mean non-existence. It means that which is experienced temporarily and, as soon as the truth is realized, disappears. That is Mithyā.
Question from the audience: Can you say Mithyā is a delusion?
Answer: There are certain points we have discussed multiple times. When we say this microphone is Mithyā, the mic itself is not Mithyā. Rather, in my mind, there is an idea of the mic. If you were to ask Sri Ramakrishna what this object is, what do you think he would say? He would say, “It is the Divine Mother.” He would not call it a mic, nor would he call it a floor. He would say it is God Himself. But does God ever change His appearance? Has the rope ever changed its appearance? Then where is the snake? The snake is in my mind. The delusion is within me, not out there. Superimposition always means that the error is within me, not external to me.
Question from the audience: Why do all of us have the same delusion? Her question is: If I am deluding myself, then why do all of us experience the same delusion?
Answer: There are two answers, but first, I will give you one from the Advaitic/Vedāntic point of view. What we call “all others” is also my delusion. You don’t exist separately. Again, if you are Mithyā, then there are no two categories: one called “real Mithyā” and another called “unreal Mithyā.” Everything is Mithyā alone. To understand this point, I will give an illustration. Suppose you are having a dream, and in that dream, you see someone standing at a distance in a dimly lit area. It appears to be a bear. Now, will everyone in your dream see the bear as a bear, or is it only you who perceives it that way?
Now, consider this discussion: the delusion is in your mind, and yet the question arises - why do all others in the dream also share the same delusion? I hope you are following my point. All the others in my dream are also projections of my one mind, which has created everything. Who created that bear? I did. Who created the other people? I did. And not only that., who created me in the dream? I did. So, there are two distinct "I"s in the dream: One “I” is the witness. The other “I” is the individual acting within the dream. That individual “I” is just as much an object as anything else in the dream. This is the answer.
We do not know the origin, and there is no way to find out how it came about. However, there is a way for it to be removed. That is why Māyā is Anādi but not Ananta. Anādi means we do not know when it started. The general law is that whatever is "beginningless" must also be endless. However, in the case of Māyā, since it is not Satya, Anādi does not mean it is eternal. If it were eternal, it would never disappear. Anādi simply means, “I have no way of knowing when it started.” Consider a simple example borrowed from Swami Dayananda Saraswati. He asks: "Tell me the exact second when you started to dream. Take a stopwatch and try to determine the precise moment when you transitioned into deep sleep or entered the dream state. Make a note of when you begin dreaming. But if you are watching the clock, that means you are not actually asleep or dreaming. And when you truly fall asleep, you will not be able to record the time." This is what is meant by Anādi. Can you pinpoint the exact moment a dream or deep sleep begins? You cannot. You will never be able to determine its exact starting point. The moment something begins is called Ādi; Anādi means "beginningless." So, while we do not know when a dream starts, we do know when it ends -the moment we wake up, we can immediately note the exact time it ended. See how beautifully this illustrates the concept? The most important point is that Māyā is Anādi but not Ananta, because it comes to an end. In contrast, God is both Anādi and Ananta - because if God had an end, then our Mokṣha would also come to an end. Not only that, but there would be no God at all if God were subject to birth and death. That is unimaginable. Even though these arguments may appear rational, they point to profound truths that must be deeply understood.
In the dream, we have three entities: 1) me as the witness, 2) me as the player, and 3) the whole world with whom I am interacting. How do we know there are three? Because when we wake up, we remember everything. For example, I remember I was walking, which means I was witnessing myself. I recall meeting some people, and we all got frightened thinking it was a bear. But when we got closer, we realized it was our old friend who had put on a bear appearance. So, whatever is temporary is called Mithyā. Mithyā is not non-existence. That is why we have three technical words in Vedānta, which are very important to grasp: Satyam, Mithyā, and Tuccham. Satyam means that which has true, unchanging existence. Tuccham means something that never had any existence. Another name for non-existence is Tuccham. An example of this is the "son of a barren woman." We use words, but some words do not correspond to any actual object. For instance, buttermilk is a word that sounds like it refers to two distinct items, but in fact, it contains neither butter nor milk! Even now, I cannot quite figure out why it is called buttermilk. Similarly, there are words like Vandhyā Putra (the son of a barren woman). The words exist, but the corresponding object does not. That is called Tuccham, which means total non-existence. On the other hand, Satyam refers to that which always exists without any change. So where does the word Mithyā come from? When Satyam, because of some defect in me, is mistaken for something similar, it is called Mithyā. Always keep that in mind. You can never mistake an elephant for a rope. Why is that?
Because there should be what’s called Sādṛśhya. Sādṛśhya means similarity. There must be a likeness or resemblance between the two entities for a mistake to occur. You might mistake a rope for a piece of garland, a little bit of water flowing, or a bent stick. But you can never mistake a rope for a human being, a dog, an elephant, or a cow. Why? Because there is no similarity between them. The point I want to make is that Mithyā is a temporary delusion and partially incorrect knowledge. It is not completely incorrect knowledge, but partially incorrect knowledge. Do you understand the meaning of partial? Whenever we use words, grammar can help us a little more. We say, “There is a rope.” Listen carefully - “There is a rope.” But because of insufficient light and my own fear, I mistake the rope for a snake. What am I saying? “There is a snake.” “There is a rope.” “There is a snake.” In these sentences, the phrase “There is a” is common, and there is no difference in that part of the sentence. Previously and now, it remains the same. That means, the existence part of the rope is not mistaken, but only the appearance part of the rope is mistaken. Since it is only a mistake, it will be corrected sooner or later - whether it is corrected in one year or in a billion years, but it will definitely be corrected at some point.
Therefore, whatever is temporary (whether it exists for only one year or a billion years), that is called Mithyā. This is a wonderful analysis! Mithyā is not to be equated with non-existence. Mithyā always depends upon an Āśhraya, which we call Adhiṣṭhāna, a support. Had there been no rope, there would be no snake either. These are the concepts we must constantly reinforce to understand them clearly. Amongst these three words in Vedānta - Satyam, Mithyā, and Tuccham - our problem is not with Tuccham, because that which doesn’t exist cannot give us any problem. Our problem arises when we mistake Satyam for Mithyā. We mistake a rope for a snake, which is a wrong notion. First of all, this notion is temporary because it has started at a particular time. When is that particular time? When there is sufficient light, I know it is a rope. In semi-darkness or a dimly lit area, I still see something. What I am seeing is Satyam, but what I think I am seeing (a snake) is Mithyā. The first point is that it is a temporary phenomenon. If it were Satyam, it should never change. The second point is that if this delusion or superimposition is not out there externally, it implies that it is in my mind, and it must be removed somehow. The third point is that it can be removed only by two things: the scripture as interpreted by a Sadguru. Scripture can also be misunderstood, hence the need for a Sadguru. In fact, most people, for example, the Hare Krishna devotees, misinterpret Bhagavān Krishna in the Bhagavad Gītā when he is proclaiming:
Ye Yathā Māṁ Prapadyante Tāṁs Tathaiva Bhajāmy Aham
Mama Vartmānuvartante Manuṣyāḥ Pārtha Sarvaśaḥ (Bhagavad Gītā 4 -11)
"However men approach Me, even so do I accept them; for, O Pārtha (Arjuna), men follow My path in every way." In other words, as people worship Me, I also respond to them exactly in the same way. But the Hare Krishna people say, "No, no, you are a deaf fellow; I will filter what you are going to hear. Only those who call you Krishna, those words will reach you. And if anybody utters any other name, such as Rāma, Vishnu, Nārāyaṇa, let alone Allah or Jesus Christ, they are not going to come to you." This is called fanaticism, whereas the Lord is saying, "However men approach Me, even so do I accept them."
The three points we discussed are: First of all, Satyam (truth) will always be eternal. Truth will never change. Eternal means that which never changes, not that which continues. For example, Vedānta says this earth came into existence nearly 14 billion years ago, and this earth is continuing to exist. According to physicists, this is not the only phenomenon. This particular manifestation has been ongoing for 14 billion years, since the Big Bang. That was the mistaken notion people held until a few years ago. Then, some scientists raised a crucial question. This is how knowledge progresses: by raising questions. They asked, "What was there before the Big Bang?" There must have been something for the Big Bang to occur, because if there was nothing, nothing would have happened. So, there must have been at least something - at least a time bomb, a fuse, and a matchbox, etc. Something must have been there for the Big Bang to occur. This brings us to the second point: there must be something. Can you imagine something that never existed suddenly coming into existence? That is what the Bhagavad Gītā also says in terms of Sat and Asat. Sat always existed, and Asat never existed. This aligns with what physicists also state through the First Law of Thermodynamics, which asserts that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another. What this means is that energy cannot be created; it is always there. It can only be transformed. Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be transformed. And when energy transforms, it becomes matter. Take electricity, for example. How do you know there is electricity? It must be transformed through a transformer, and only then will it manifest as light, heat, motion, or attractive capacity. These are the four final truths that Einstein sought to unify.
The three points we must keep in mind are:
- Mithyā is a temporary phenomenon. Truth never changes.
- Mithyā is an idea in our minds; it is not something external.
- Unless we remove Mithyā, we will never know the truth.
How can Mithyā be removed? Only by truth, which is obtained through the grace of God in the form of a Guru interpreting the scripture. There is no other way. These are the three points we must clarify, as they are relevant to what we are discussing.
Answering a question from the audience: Every living creature goes through three states: waking, dream, and deep sleep (Jāgrat, Svapna, Suṣupti). Turīya is not a state. You must always remember that Turīya is the very ground upon which these phenomena occur. Jāgrat Avasthā is the waking state, Svapna Avasthā is the dream state, and Suṣupti Avasthā is the deep sleep state. In the waking and dream states, the two powers of Māyā - Āvaraṇa-Śhakti and Vikṣhepa-Śhakti function. However, in the deep sleep state, Vikṣhepa-Śhakti is not present because the mind is not functioning. But Āvaraṇa-Śhakti is still there, covering the truth.
Question from the audience: Typically, we see Māyā as the hypnotic power, or whatever you may call it. Are there glimpses of it? Or are there moments when Māyā is uncovered?
Answer: Yes, actually, it is revealed all the time. It is surprising that, at all times, that background is there, but we don’t pay attention to it.
I have explained this many times in our classes, but I will reiterate it now. Within each personality, there are two “I’s” - two kinds of identities. One “I” says, “I was a child,” “I am a young man,” “I am a middle-aged person,” “I am the old man,” and so on. The only thing this “I” cannot say is that it is a dead man - that is for others to say. But there is another “I” that says, “That was me.” Suppose you have photographs from your childhood, adolescence, youth, or middle age. When you look at these different photographs, will you say that the individual in each photograph is different, or will you say it is the same person? I hope you can understand what I am trying to convey. From birth until death, I continuously hold the idea that “this is me, this is me, this is me.” This “I” temporarily identifies itself with every change that occurs in our personality. But there is another “I” that says, “That was also me, that was also me.” This continuous, unbroken “I” is the changeless “I.” There is the changeless “I” and the changing “I.” Because if there were only a changing “I,” you would never be able to recognize your past. Have you understood this point?
Question: Connected to that statement, the question is: Are all the thoughts we have related to the unchanging “I”?
Answer: Correct. And you are witnessing them - “Oh, I had that thought,” or “When I was a child, I made a foolish mistake.” However, when the child made that mistake, the child never thought, “I made a foolish mistake.” Instead, the child thinks, “I am doing the most wonderful thing in the world.” So, who is the one witnessing and passing judgment? Judgment can only be passed by the Sākṣhī (witness), never by oneself.
Question: Another question - this “I,” which is constant, is it always in the present?
Answer: No, it is beyond past, present, and future. The future, of course, exists only in imagination. There are two aspects of “I”: one that stands apart and another that completely identifies itself saying, “I am happy, I am unhappy.” The former says, “At that time, I was happy; at another time, I was unhappy.” Isn't this a common experience? If you carefully reflect, the “I” that says, “I am happy” or “I am unhappy” is the temporary “I,” identifying itself with the experience - it is the experiencer. However, the “I” that simply recollects, saying, “At that time, you were happy, and at another time, you were unhappy,” without passing any judgment, is merely witnessing. That witnessing “I” is the permanent “I.” We are constantly experiencing this permanent “I.” That is why it is called permanent. If it were impermanent, it would belong to the category of the changing “I.” So, this means that it is always present - now and at all times. What, then, is spiritual life? It is shifting focus from the changing “I” to the witnessing, changeless “I.” Then, one realizes, “Oh, that was the state of waking; that was the state of dreaming; that was the state of dreamless sleep.” I am witnessing it all.
What is the psychology behind this concept? It is a profound psychological principle: Whatever I am experiencing is not me. That is the foundation for understanding this entire topic. To reiterate – “Whatever we are experiencing is not us.” For example, you are experiencing (seeing and listening to) me - do you say, “I am you”? You are experiencing this microphone, do you say, “I am this microphone”? If so, that would be absurd! You experience a dog - what do you say? You experience a donkey - what do you say? The witnessing I is permanent. And permanence means it must exist in the waking state, the dream state, and the deep sleep state. This is the point I am emphasizing. You are witnessing, and upon waking up, it is this witness that says, “I had a dream,” etc. Who is remembering this experience? The participant I or the witness I? It is the witness I. If it had not witnessed, who would be remembering? You cannot remember what you have not witnessed. What you have not experienced, you can never recall isn’t it? So, upon waking up, you remember, I had that dream. But who is remembering it? The dream I or the witness I? It is the witness I. Now, the crucial question is: How do you merge both? How do you shift identification from the small I to the big I? Can I always remain as the big I? That is precisely what we are trying to achieve in spiritual life. And how do we do that?
Let us say I am sitting here, and I feel like doing something mischievous. But then, I suddenly think, Oh, somebody is watching me. This reminds me of the story of Kanakadāsa. One day, his Guru, Vyāsatīrtha, wanted to test his disciples' understanding of true awareness. He gave each of them a banana and instructed: "Go to a place where no one can see you and eat this banana." All the disciples left in search of hidden spots. Each one ate their banana, believing they had found a place where no one could see them. However, after some time, Kanakadāsa returned with his banana untouched. When asked why he had not eaten it, he humbly replied: "Guruji, I searched everywhere, but I could not find a place where no one was watching me. Wherever I went, I felt that God was watching me, and so I could not eat the banana." Now, how can you eat a banana when the condition is that nobody should see you eating it? The issue arises because I fail to recognize that I am both a witness and a participant. So, I introduce the idea of God. In fact, this idea of God is the most marvelous idea! Some ignorant people claim that there is no God because they think of God as an object. They do not realize that God is, in fact, the most profound idea in the human mind. I will explain this further - do not worry. These are deep truths that must be understood. Suppose someone says, "If there is a God, show me." Well, many things cannot be shown. If someone says, "I love you," and you respond, "Show me your love," how can love be shown? Because love is a concept. In our experience, there are two things: percept and concept. What is a percept? I am able to see you, and you are able to see me. This is called percept or perception? A concept, on the other hand, is when we say, “That person is a good person, that person is a friendly person, that person is a loving person, that person is a hateful person,” and so on. Now, if you say, “That person is a loving person, but I have never seen that love—where does he keep it? Is it in his right pocket, left pocket, or back pocket? Where is this pocket?” Since we cannot see such a pocket, where is it? That is why I say, if anyone can pickpocket, it is only Sri Ramakrishna , and Sri Ramakrishna does pickpocket you know that? Because every pickpocket is, in a way, a manifestation of Sri Ramakrishna himself. There was once a devotee named Tej Chandra who lost 300 rupees. He went to the Gaṅgā and said, “Thākur, what have you done?” What did he mean? For a devotee, everything is done by God. God could not tolerate his distress, so He appeared and said, “Why are you weeping? Your money is there, under this stone.” The man ran, lifted the stone, and found his 300 rupees. Now, two questions arise. First, was it the same 300 rupees that was originally in his pocket, or was it a brand-new set of notes, freshly printed from the mint? Second, if a pickpocket had stolen the money, what did Sri Ramakrishna do? He must have pickpocketed the first pickpocket, retrieved the money, and hidden it even before the devotee arrived! Anyway, I’m just making fun.
What is the idea of God? First of all, this is the deepest Vedānta - God is not an object. God cannot be an object. God should never be thought of as an object. Why? Because what is the truth? There are only two things in this world: subject and object. Which is greater? The subject or the object? Which is independent? The subject. Do you follow me? Look, I can see the mic, but the mic cannot see me. I can close my eyes and forget about the mic. This means that the very existence of the mic depends on me. In other words, the subject is superior to the object. The subject is independent, while the object is dependent. If I do not care to perceive the object, it will have no existence at all. It depends on me. So, if God were an object, then who would be superior? Me or God? And if I were superior, what would be the use of praying to Him?
If me (or ‘I’), the subject, am so miserable, then the object i.e., God, whom I am trying to meditate upon must be even worse than me. That is why it is said that God is not an object. God is always the subject. This means that the pure consciousness through which we experience everything is God Cit-svarūpa and Caitanya-svarūpa. That is why God is pure consciousness and is always the subject, never the object. I hope this point is clear. We will discuss it again because it takes a long time for us to truly understand. Secondly, I always mention this fact: we think, “I am a limited being.” And every millisecond, this limited being has only one thought: “How can I be unlimited?” In simple terms, “How can I do whatever I like?” Who can do whatever He likes? Only God - Sarvatantra, Svatantra. He is the most independent; He can do whatever He pleases. And in reality, each one of us desires to be God. What is the other idea about God? God is deathless.
Now, consider our concept of God - can you ever think that God, too, will die? That He, too, undergoes birth, growth, and death? If He were subject to all these limitations like me, then such a God would be of no use to me. If He Himself were struggling to get out, how could He help me get out? So, God is birthless and deathless. Being deathless means He must also be birthless, which means He must be eternal. That is the idea. I have limited knowledge, but God has unlimited knowledge. And do I not want to have unlimited knowledge? Of course, I do! I want to know whether I will survive tomorrow, when death will come, or which exact number will win a million rupees. Don’t I want to know? I do. Now, what is my condition? I don’t know. Therefore, my concept of God is that there must be a being who knows everything - that is Cit, the Cit aspect of God. I experience both happiness and unhappiness. What is the proportion? 50-50. Understand? A horse and a rabbit, if at all. I do not want to have only a little happiness and a lot of unhappiness. Is it possible? So, I imagine: there must be something beyond this. How would it be? Suppose there is a being who is Sadānandamaya, or Sadānandamayī Kālī. My imagination soars, and I conclude: there must be a being and He is called Ānanda-svarūpa, Sat-Cit-Ānanda. And that Ānanda neither ebbs nor flows; it is neither short nor long, it is infinite and eternal. So, this is my concept of God and everybody’s concept of God. Is it not? How did this concept arise?
This is the law you must understand: the human mind never conceives of something that is entirely impossible. You cannot imagine something you can never become. Can I become an elephant? Can I become Bhīmasena? No, it is not possible for me to become them. But for God, it is possible. This means that I am thinking - if I were God, what would I want to be? I would not want to die. I would want to be all-knowing. And I would want everyone to love me. Is that not so? Would I ever wish, even in my imagination, that 99% of people love me but 1% hate me? No! I would want everyone to love me completely. This is the concept of God that we have. So, what is the idea? First, we said that God is not an object. God is always the subject. Second, we understand that God is infinite and eternal, untouched by death, ignorance, suffering, or unhappiness. Now, the third point is very important. Suppose I do not know whether such a being exists, but I firmly believe that such a being must exist. Who is a devotee? One who believes that God exists. If God exists, then He is also kind, compassionate, and loving. Therefore, whenever I pray, whatever I pray for, He is going to fulfill my desire. Is that not so? Here is an interesting fact: can you ever pray to God for something while believing that He cannot fulfill it? Think about it. Can you produce a desire, pray for it, and at the same time believe that God is incapable of granting it? Such a thought never arises. This means that whatever desire comes into our mind, we have complete confidence that if God wills, He can fulfill it because He is God and can do whatever He likes.
Have you understood what I just said? There would be no desire in our mind if we truly believed that the desire could not be fulfilled—whether by God or anyone else. Now, what is the constant prayer of every living creature? Only three things:
- I do not want to die
- I want to know everything
- I want to be very happy
Is this not a fact? I believe that these things can be attained; otherwise, I would not even pray for them. I hope you are able to grasp this concept. You must think deeply about it. What did I say earlier? A desire that we believe can never be fulfilled will never truly arise in our minds. We always desire what is absolutely possible, at least by God. So, what is the one fundamental desire, whether consciously or unconsciously, knowingly or unknowingly, of every living creature? It is this: May I not die. May I transition from untruth to truth, from darkness to light, and from mortality to immortality.
Asato Mā Sadgamaya,
Tamaso Mā Jyotirgamaya,
Mṛtyor Mā'mṛtaṃ Gamaya
I believe that it is possible. So, here is the third point: If by praying to God, visiting various holy places, and practicing Japam and Tapas, I feel that I am a happier person, then what is the problem for those who say God doesn’t exist? You know, there are people who claim that God does not exist. But the real issue is not whether God exists or not - the real point is that I am very happy thinking about God. So, why does it bother them? And remember, a headache comes only to those who have a head! Now, what does "head" mean here? Those who do not know how to think - do they truly have a head or not? The only benefit of having a head without the power of thinking is that it can be washed - brainwashed. That is the only advantage.
Now, follow these three points: God is not an object; He is the subject. God is our greatest aspiration, and such an aspiration would never arise in our mind unless we were completely confident that it could be fulfilled. If I am practicing remembrance, Japa, prayer, righteousness (Dharma), and it is making me a happier and better person, who can object? Nobody can object. But those who do object are simply brainless fellows. That is all I can say. Okay, now let us return to our subject. This discussion began with Gāyatrī’s question: I may be deluded, but how can others be deluded? The answer is simple - whatever I call "others" are also products of my own delusion. They are part of the same delusion.
Then, another possible objection that arises is: Maybe in the dream state, such things are possible, but how is it possible in the waking state? The important point to understand is this - when we are in a dream, do we call it a dream? No. What do we call it? The waking state - because, at that moment, it feels real to us. Whichever state we are in, that state appears as the waking state to us. Now, when we are in this waking state, we compare and say, “Oh, that was just a dream, that was all my imagination”. But when we enter a dream, our so-called waking state also becomes an imagination, doesn’t it? In a dream, you might find yourself in a dungeon, even though you went to sleep in your own bed. So, where are you really? Are you in your own bed, or are you in the dungeon? You are in the dungeon and that becomes the reality. That means the waking state has become unreal. It is as simple as that. Yet, this simple analysis is something many people struggle to understand.
Question: In the waking state, we have distinct bodies and distinct mind, and I cannot influence another body and mind. It is not my own creation, it is a whole creation of which I am a part.
Answer: So, that is what you are thinking. Is it a right statement? It is a totally wrong statement. It is okay. When do you understand that was a dream? When I wake up. When you wake up. And just now, I give example. When you are in dream, that is your waking state. When you are in the dream, the dream state alone is absolute reality. You will never question “oh, last second I was in Chennai and this second I was in Australia”. You will never think it is irrational. In dream, everything is absolutely rational and absolutely real. When you come back to waking state, you say that was imagination. When you are in the dream state, what has waking state become? Imagination only. This is one argument as an answer. The other argument is, what is this? A chair. I am seeing it. You are seeing it. Everyone is seeing it. A woodworm also sees it. Ask the woodworm what it is? It says it is food. Imagine this is a wooden chair. Then, for a woodworm it is not wood but it is food. In which world is it living? Food world and in which world you are living? What is the truth? You think whatever I am perceiving is the truth. No. Whatever we are all perceiving are different truths and different truths depend upon different states of the mind. I gave an example. I hope you remember. A young woman is walking in the street. This was Sri Ramakrishna’s example. A young child sees her, runs and hugs her, and calls her mama or mom. An old man is passing by. He also sees her, runs there and hugs her and says, my darling daughter. A young man is walking. He also runs and embraces her, says, my darling wife. Another young man is passing that way and he says, this is a very beautiful lady. How many objects they are all experiencing? One object. How many views they have all got? Multiple. Their actions, reactions and what they are going to do, everything depends upon the individual. I hope you got the point of this illustration. The point is, even though we may be seeing this same object, we are not seeing it exactly as everybody else is seeing it. Everybody is seeing it in a totally different way.
Question: In the waking state, we have distinct bodies and distinct minds, and I cannot influence another body or mind. This world is not my own creation; it is a whole creation of which I am merely a part.
Answer: So, that is what you think. But is it a correct statement? No, it is a completely incorrect statement. Let’s analyze this. When do you understand that something was a dream? Only when you wake up. When you are in the dream, however, that dream alone appears as the absolute reality. Do you ever question, Oh, just a moment ago I was in Chennai, and now I am in Australia - how is that possible? No. In a dream, everything appears perfectly rational and real. It is only when you return to the waking state that you say, Oh, that was just imagination. But when you were in the dream, what happened to the so-called waking state? It too became nothing more than imagination. This is one argument. Now, let me give you another argument. What is this? A chair. I see it. You see it. Everyone sees it. Even a woodworm sees it. But ask the woodworm what it is, and it will say, It is food! Imagine that this is a wooden chair - then, for a woodworm, it is not "wood," but "food." So, in which world is the woodworm living? The food world. And in which world are you living? The object world. Now, what is the truth? You assume that whatever you perceive is the absolute truth. But no - whatever we perceive is merely a relative truth, and these truths vary depending on the state of the mind. Let me give you an example, one that Sri Ramakrishna used. A young woman is walking down the street. A small child sees her, runs up to her, hugs her, and calls her Mama. An elderly man sees her, approaches her, and says, My dear daughter! A young man sees her, embraces her, and says, My beloved wife. Another young man looks at her and thinks, What a beautiful woman! Now, how many objects are they all perceiving? Just one. But how many different perspectives do they have? Multiple. Their actions, reactions, and thoughts are entirely dependent on their own perceptions. So, the key point is this: even though we may all be seeing the same object, we are not seeing it in exactly the same way. Everyone perceives it differently, based on their own state of mind.
My favorite illustration is a wooden table. Four beings are asked, "What is it?" Don't say it is a table—that is only for conveying the idea. It is an object which we call a table. You call a woodworm and ask, "What is it?" What does it say? "Food." You call a human being and ask, "What is it?" He will reply that it is a wooden table. You call a physicist with an electron microscope and ask, "What is it?" He will say, "It is energy, pure energy whirling at mind-boggling speed." You call Sri Ramakrishna and ask, "What is it?" What do you think he will say? "Pure consciousness." I hope you are able to grasp the idea as to why I gave these two illustrations. This profound idea has been threadbare discussed by Vedāntins. They created two siddhāntas or theories: Sṛṣṭi-Dṛṣṭi-Vāda and Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi-Vāda (these terms relate to different philosophical viewpoints in Advaita Vedānta regarding the nature of perception and creation. Sṛṣṭi-Dṛṣṭi-Vāda suggests that the world is created first and then perceived, while Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi-Vāda proposes that perception itself gives rise to creation). Sṛṣṭi means "God created" - that is called Sṛṣṭi. Because God created, I am able to experience it. Dṛṣṭi means I am able to see it, I am able to experience it. Seeing means not only seeing but also hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching - everything. This is called Sṛṣṭi-Dṛṣṭi-Vāda. But both things are necessary for life. If there were no wooden table, then life would not be comfortable. However, even though Sṛṣṭi should come first, Dṛṣṭi comes before Sṛṣṭi. That is called Dṛṣṭi-Sṛṣṭi-Vāda. Do you follow what it means? That means how I experience that wooden table—that is my world. So, in which world is a mosquito living? A mosquito's world. In which world is a woodworm living? A woodworm's world. In which world is a tiger living? A tiger's world. In which world is a child living? A child's world. Now, I hope you are able to follow my argument. Even though we are all living in different individual worlds, and even though we are interacting with the same common things, our perceptions differ. That is why a beautiful book has been written: Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. Have you ever heard of it? It is about how a woman can never see from a man's standpoint, and a man also cannot see from a woman's standpoint.
Question: The common play exists in the waking state. Perspectives vary i.e., the way my world is different, but still there is something. Whereas in the dream, it is my mind which is creating. In the waking state, there are multiple are there are and each subject is viewing in its own way. So, there is a difference between the waking and dreaming state.
Answer: There is a difference in their views. This fact you have to understand clearly. A chair will be a chair even if a billion people look at it. But how they look at it? This is a chair, there is no difference in that perspective. However, when you say “This is a beautiful chair, this ugly chair, old chair, new chair” - these are all different views. So, we are having a common factor, I am seeing a chair, but I am having uncommon ideas about it – regarding how I like it, I don't like it, I want to get rid of it, etc., etc.
Question: Who created that? Like in the dream, I created. Yes. There is a common and then there is an ugly chair, great chair. Yeah. Who created that, that common basis?
Answer: That common basis is existence, pure existence. Common basis, because whatever you see here, it's a very interesting, deep question also. There is something called existing an object, that is a common thing for everybody. But how I view it, depending upon my past experience, no two people ever look at the same object exactly in the same way and even the same person doesn't look at the same object in the same way all the time. When you are hungry, you look at food in a different way. After you are completely filled up, you look upon the same food in a totally different way. These are very concepts which require a lot of thinking, Śhravaṇa and Manana. Otherwise, without thinking, you can go on putting the same questions again and again. Let us come back to our topic now.
Let us just recollect: Sarva Maṅgala Māṅgalye The Divine Mother is the most auspicious of all auspicious things. I made a statement, everything in this world is auspicious. If somebody beats you, somebody murders you, that is also a very auspicious thing. How? From two points. First of all, it is not real. If it is real, then God is the most cruel being in the world. It is like a play in a drama. But we don't know it is a drama. Secondly, how do we become better people? Is it by always being happy or by going through suffering? Which will make us better people? Suffering. So everything is good.
Another way: Sarvārtha Sādhike - the Divine Mother bestows all Arthas. Artha means desire and She fulfills them. And according to the Hindus, there are only four. All the fruits anybody can desire are divided into four: Dharma, Artha, Kāma, and ultimately Mokṣha. One note I want to add here. Dharma, Artha, Kāma always lead us to happiness. From little happiness to more happiness to still more happiness. Śharaṇye - therefore, the only way we want to progress in life, that means we want to become healthy and happier, is only by taking refuge in the Divine Mother. Divine Mother to be worshipped, Divine Mother to be followed. Divine Mother to be worshipped through prayer and meditation, Divine Mother to be followed by her teachings called Dharmaśāstra. Be Dhārmik - Satyam vada. Dharmam cara. Svādhyāyān mā pramadaḥ Taittirīya Upaniṣad (1.11.1) etc. Tryambake. Tryambake means she has three eyes: Sūrya - the Sun, Candra - the Moon and Jñāna-Netra. Another way to understand is Tri-ambike. Amba is the meaning of the word, what is called letter of the alphabet. Tri-Ambike, it means three-lettered - Aa (ā), Oo (ū), and Mm (m̐), which means Om. So, Tryambaka refers to the three-eyed form, while Triambike refers to the three-lettered form. You are the manifestation of Gauri. Gauri means white color or golden color, because golden color always implies pure Sattva Guṇa. Śharaṇye Tryambake Gaurī Nārāyaṇi Namo'stu Te. O Mother, I worship you as Nārāyaṇi. So, this is the meaning of the first verse. We will discuss it in our next class. Hopefully, we will cover the remaining two verses in the next class.
Oṃ Jananīm Sāradām Devīm Rāmakṛṣṇam Jagadgurum |
Pādapadme Tayoḥ Śritvā Praṇamāmi Muhurmuhuhu ||