Taittiriya Upanishad Lecture 81 Ch2 6.1-2 on 03 December 2025
Full Transcript(Not Corrected)
Opening Invocation
ॐ जननीम् शरदाम् देविम् रामक्रिष्णम् जगत् गुर्म्
पादपद्मे तयोः स्रित्वाः प्रणमामि मुहुरुमु
Oṁ jananīṁ śaraḍhāṁ deveṁ rāmakriṣṇam jagad-gurum
pādapadmetayosritvā pranamāmi-muhurumuhu
ॐ सह नाववतु ।
सह नौ भुनक्तु ।
सह वीर्यं करवावहै ।
तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ।
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥ हरि ॐ
OM SAHANAVAVATO SAHANAV BHUNAKTO SAHAVIRYAM KARAVAVAHAI TEJASVINAVADHITAMASTUMA VIDVISHAVAHAI OM SHANTI SHANTI SHANTIHI HARIHI OM
OM May Brahman protect us both. May Brahman bestow upon us both the fruit of knowledge.
May we both obtain the energy to acquire knowledge.
May what we both study reveal the truth. May we cherish no ill feeling toward each other.
OM PEACE PEACE PEACE BE UNTO ALL
Introduction to the Sixth Section
So we are studying the sixth section of the second chapter, Brahmānanda Vallī, of the Taittirīya Upaniṣad. We have already started it, and this section starts with a marvellous opening:
Asanneva sa bhavati asad brahmeti veda chet
Asti brahmeti chet veda santam enaṁ tato viduḥ iti
If anybody truly from the bottom of his heart says that God doesn't exist—in other words, in what is called Vedantic language, rational language—it should be translated as "existence doesn't exist."
Understanding Existence in Vedantic Context
One problem when we are using this English language is when we say "existence"—a mountain exists, a cloud of earth exists—then it is without any consciousness. It is what is called jaḍa, inert. But always in the Vedantic language, whatever be the school of philosophy, existence means God. Because God exists, everything exists. Because God is everything, this idea is expressed.
Ṛṣis try to express: Arjuna saw Viśvarūpadarśana. In one, Bhagavān, he saw the whole creation. Viśva means creation. Similarly, existence means that is the very nature of Brahman.
The Nature of Knowledge and Awareness
Knowledge—wherever there is knowledge, that is also Brahman. "I don't know about Brahman," but knowing "I do not know"—even to say I hope you are getting the subtle point—even to say that I do not know, I know that I do not know. We are fully aware: I know some things, but about this particular thing I do not know. That I am ignorant, I know I am ignorant. Even that is knowledge.
So wherever there is an object, first, there cannot be any object without existence. Secondly, as soon as we perceive something, there would be knowledge: "This is a human being, this is a piece of rock. A human being is a conscious being, and this rock is inert thing, jaḍa." That knowledge also pertains to that object.
Sat-Cit-Ānanda
And wherever there is existence, there would be knowledge. And that knowledge indicates clearly that it belongs to the existence. And whenever we perceive any object, there would be some reaction: "This is dangerous, this is very beneficial," and the other thing is "neither beneficial nor dangerous." So either a positive feeling or a negative feeling or a neutral feeling arises whenever we encounter anything. Of course, consciously we are not saying it, but unconsciously we are accepting: where there is existence, there is awareness, and there is ānanda.
What is ānanda? We have to understand. Ānanda means: less of unhappiness is ānanda, and more of ānanda is also ānanda. So everything is ānanda only; only it is a comparative degree, that's all.
The Fundamental Truth
So what we are trying to understand here: nobody should say, because to say "I do not exist," one has to exist. So once existence proves—existence in general, my existence is a particular existence—but existence per se in itself is the universal infinite existence without any manifestation. And that is the nature of Brahman: infinite existence is Brahman, infinite knowledge is Brahman, infinite bliss is Brahman.
Therefore, if anybody says "I do not believe in God," it is a false statement, it is a wrong statement. But if somebody truly believes God exists, even in a most realistic way, other people, everybody comes to know: here is a holy person. Santa means a saint, but not necessarily—he is a holy person, he is a very good person, he is an unselfish person, he is a happy person.
Śaṅkarācārya's Commentary
And why is it so? That is where the bhāṣyakāra—that is Śaṅkarācārya, I am following Śaṅkarācārya only—tells. And before I go into it, I have to remind you again what I have iterated many times: that is, before we desire anything, we have to have faith in such a thing. Without knowledge there can be no desire. If I do not know such a sweet doesn't exist, the question of desiring that sweet doesn't arise at all.
The Nature of True Belief
So what happens when a person says—and we are here, the Upaniṣad is here talking about a person who truly, sincerely believes God exists. Instead of using the word Brahman, I am using the word God. God exists, and we have concept of God. What is God? He is everywhere, he is all-witness, he is all-knowing, he is all-powerful, he is all-compassionate. And then we have seen seven proofs for the existence of God.
But here also I have to caution you: these are logical ways of trying to understand the existence of Brahman or God. But Vedānta never believes that through logic one can establish God. No. It is only through consciousness. If I have consciousness, then there is a collective consciousness. Individual consciousness is me. Collective consciousness is called Brahma, Brahman, God, Īśvara, etc.
Faith and Scriptural Authority
Now what is the point here? If a person believes "I believe in God. Where is he? He is here. Is he sleeping? No, he is watching me. And how do I know about him? Through the scriptures. And what do the scriptures tell? That God had given commandments—how to live human beings' life."
And by the way, scriptures apply only to intelligent, conscious human beings, not to anybody else. You can't go and tell to a child, "Veda tells this, you will have to do this or you have to refrain from this." Child—in the case of the child, this vidhi-niṣedha doesn't apply.
Who Is Bound by Karma?
So all non-human beings, by extension, are like children. They do not have that kind of intelligence, and therefore they are excluded from the karmaphala. When a person doesn't have the knowledge of the consequences and of the egotism that "I want to do this" either good or bad, such a person does not incur any karmaphala. So children are exempt, mad people are exempt, of course non-humans are exempt.
The Result of True Faith
Now what is important here? What we have to understand here: that if somebody believes in God, that means he believes in the scriptures. And if somebody believes in the scriptures, what is the proof that a person believes in the scriptures? He will just follow. If you have faith this food material is poison, you will not eat it, even if it is labelled as the most healthy food in the world. And by the way, most of the so-called healthy foods are found out to be unhealthy foods—that is a different issue.
So a person believes God is there, and he is watching me, and he will reward me or punish me. Therefore, such a person refrains from doing what displeases God, and he does only what pleases God. Naturally such a person will become a good person, a holy person, a saintly person, a spiritual person. So he wants to go towards God, and that is what is being said.
If somebody says—says means here not says actually—somebody knows in his heart of hearts God is, Brahman is, his whole life will change. He becomes a very great person, what we call a santa, a saintly person: saintly life, saintly behaviour. Therefore others, when they watch such a person's life, they call him a saint.
Examples of Saints and Their Suffering
And many times when we study the lives of saints, we see that they have undergone, they have gone through innumerable, insurmountable difficulties in many cases. Whether you take the life of Mīrābāī or Saint John of the Cross or Saint Francis of Assisi—everybody, according to their karmaphala, including Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa, Jesus Christ—they have to go through many sufferings. And in spite of that, they will not give up their saintly life. Therefore they are called saints.
Saintly life: one who leads a saintly life is a saint. That is the only thing. Somebody tells you he is a saint—that is a false statement.
The Essential Quality: Happiness
Now the other part which is very important for us, which we have to take note: here is a person, you find him leading a good life, he doesn't do any harm, he is trying to lead a very good life, he is trying to help others. But he is not a happy person. If he is not a happy person, there is something very seriously wrong with that kind of life.
Because wherever there is faith in God, that God means sat-cit-ānanda. And a person who says "I believe in God, I believe in happiness" and not happy—he doesn't really believe in God. That is the simple truth. Because good life means a life of puṇyam. Puṇyam means happiness, sukham.
Understanding Puṇyam
And I told you earlier, these are marvellous definitions you have to keep in mind: What is puṇyam? Puṇyam is the mental ability to squeeze happiness under any circumstance, however depressing, suppressing circumstances.
Example: Mahātmā Gandhi
Mahātmā Gandhi, whenever he was put in jail, he used to feel very happy. Why? First of all, he can sleep longer time. When he was in public, then his time is wasted, so to say, in running here and there and giving lectures and talks, talking with people, formulating policies. But Her Majesty's Government very compassionately puts him in prison. He is supplied nice food and at the correct time, and he can get up early in the morning. He used to weave some cotton, and then he also used to pray, meditate. He used to do lot of things. Now my point is: he is not under any pressure of events; therefore he is very happy.
Example: Bāl Gaṅgādhar Tilak
Bāl Gaṅgādhar Tilak: he was sentenced to several years of imprisonment, and he took that opportunity to write that, in a way, very marvellous commentary called Karma Yoga Gītā. According to him, Gītā advocates only Karma Yoga, which is of course wrong. Gītā advocates Karma Yoga—no doubt—it also advocates Bhakti Yoga, Prajñā Yoga, and Jñāna Yoga. It doesn't emphasise one yoga to the suppression of other yogas. Equally it says: whatever way, whatever through whatever yoga a sincere aspirant struggles to reach me, I will also reach him and pull him towards me through that very particular path, through that very particular iṣṭa devatā, etc.
Self-Evaluation
So when a person says "I believe in God," look at his life. And his life: he is a good person, he is a discriminating person, he is a person, unselfish, above all he is a very happy person. Therefore other people are bound to call him—that is a beautiful statement we have to keep in mind—because we are all supposed to be spiritual aspirants. We will have to judge ourselves by this standard: Am I a santa?
I am saying God there, I am saying prayers, I am also doing japa, I am also reading scriptures, I am visiting āśramas, I am meeting swāmīs, and I also attend satsaṅgas. But am I a happier person than before? So this is one way of finding out whether, really speaking, we are spiritual people or at least we are progressing in spiritual life.
The Structure of Ānandamaya Kośa
Then the sixth section of the second chapter proceeds. So now this sixth section comes immediately after this Ānandamaya Kośa. And therefore, just as the Manomaya Kośa borrows a human-like figure from the Manomaya Kośa, Manomaya Kośa borrows it from the Prāṇamaya Kośa, Prāṇamaya Kośa borrows it from the Annamaya Kośa—Annamaya Kośa doesn't borrow it because it has got a concrete physical human body; there is no need to borrow, that is the fact.
So this Ānandamaya Ātmā also is, for the sake of contemplation, upāsana—it is imagined to be of the form of a human being. So like previous instances, and that completes the Ānandamaya Kośa.
Because this, even though it has come in the sixth, actually at the end of every section there is a Ṛg mantra, and it should be actually inserted into that particular section. Instead, according to the division, the Upaniṣad continues, begins it with the next section, unfortunately. That creates, that can create a problem, so we have to understand.
So this statement: that this Ānandamaya Kośa is also like a, like the human shape. There is a left hand, right hand, there is a head, there is a back, and there is the legs, etc.—either like a human body or like the body of a bird: left wing, right wing, and back, and then puccham, that is the tail, which really navigates like a wheel of a car.
The Questions of an Intelligent Student
Now, as we discussed earlier, after hearing this teaching from the teacher, an intelligent person—remember, questions will not come from unintelligent people. How to become, how to become intelligent people? Listen first carefully, think over them, and then: is there any flaw? Consciously find out: is it true? Is it logical? Is it rational? We have to do that process is called manana.
As a result of manana, some of the questions are assumed or presumed by the Upaniṣad itself. Or it may be that when the ṛṣi was teaching his pupils, śiṣyas, some of them immediately they grasped the essence of what the teacher was trying to convey, and immediately they are asking these questions.
How Many Questions?
What are the questions? We will deal—these are the two questions, but actually there are four questions are there. So two are what is called hidden among these two questions also. So some people interpret as three questions, some people do it as four questions.
The Anubandhacatuṣṭaya - Four Preliminary Inquiries
So what is this doubt that comes? Now means after hearing the teacher. If you remember, some of you, few of you might remember: Athāto brahma jijñāsā. Atha means what? Having acquired all the qualifications. Athāha, having heard, then jijñāsā—that is an enquiry into Brahman—comes.
Nobody can directly enquire about Brahman. He has to be an adhikārī, sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampanna adhikārī. He must have a traditional teacher, and he must fulfil all four qualifications for questioning.
The Four Anubandhās
What is it?
First question: What is the usefulness, prayojana? What is the usefulness of studying this one? Is it a waste of time, or is it worth my life to run after, to find out about this?
Then secondly: Am I an adhikārī? Like a lame person cannot take part in running marathon, like that. A blind person cannot take part in criticising a beautifully painted picture. A deaf person cannot be a critic of classical or any type of music. So one has to be a proper adhikārī. So that is the second condition to be fulfilled. These are called anubandhās.
Third is: What is the subject matter? If I have to understand about God, what is the subject matter? It is not physics, not chemistry, because they are not dealing with the existence of God, with the nature of God. They are dealing with a particular type of science. If somebody wants to be a physicist or a chemist or a doctor, he has got his own subjects. So we have to be very clear about it: I want to know about God—that is the viṣaya, that is the subject matter.
And which books clearly depict, which textbooks shall I follow? So that is the Upaniṣad or spiritual books: the Gospel of Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa, Bhagavad Gītā, any Upaniṣad, or New Testament, Old Testament, or the Koran, or the Granth Sahib—it does not matter. So these are called Anubandha Catuṣṭaya.
Practical Application
Four questions you ask: do I want, before taking up—it is a very beautiful subject. Suppose you feel like reading a book, then you have to ask yourself that, first of all: what do I gain from this book? That is called prayojana. What is the utility? What is the result? What do I gain?
Secondly, am I the fit person? Say somebody wants to understand about the nature of LLM—that is modern AI language models. Am I fit? Do I know anything about it? If you ask me flatly, I will say I am not at all fit, because I don't understand what LLM really means. So I know the benefits, what benefits could be there, but I don't have any intelligence to understand that subject. So what do I gain? And even if the prayojana is great, am I a fit person to undertake the study of this particular book?
Okay, if I am an adhikārī, then the third question will be: what type of books should be studied? Because studying any book that teaches some other subject other than what I want to know will be a waste of time—not only waste of time, waste of energy, waste of life.
Then the fourth question is: what is the relationship between the book and the subject matter? So the subject matter should decide what type of book I should read.
If any one of us put a question before taking up a book to read, then we get lot of benefit.
The Sādhana Catuṣṭaya
Of course, am I an adhikārī, am I a fit person? For that, the great Śaṅkarācārya has given four qualifications; they are called, as we are aware—so I am not going to discuss, I am only just going to mention: sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampannāha adhikārī.
What are they? Viveka, vairāgya, śamādamā, the ṣaṭka-sampatti, and mumukṣuttvam.
And if we all combine all the qualities, actually they will be nine qualities: first is one quality, second, vairāgyam is another quality, mumukṣuttvam is third quality. And in that third qualification there are six qualities—śamādamā, etc. So total will be three plus six, nine qualities.
And if anybody has got an adequate number—may not be hundred percent; hundred percent will come only after the realisation of God—but as we go on acquiring these qualities, there is a minimum quality necessary. As we go on progressing, these qualities become strengthened, and by that time we realise they become hundred percent, they become permanent, and they manifest naturally without any effort. Until that time, we have to put tremendous amount of effort.
The Relationship Between Brahman and Creation
This is just by way of introduction. Supposing a pupil had heard "Brahman exists," then what is the relationship between Brahman and—you are the guru, I am the śiṣya, these are my co-students, and this is the whole world, my parents, everything, everybody, every object is different from everything else.
Then the answer is given: it is Brahman who is the direct cause. And through seven reasons, already you have to keep them in mind, it is established: definitely God exists. And one of the conditions—not one actually, more than one—this world exists. Existence is Brahman, and therefore Brahman exists.
The Three Causes
Then the next question is: how does God create? So for creation of anything, we require at least two, if not three. What are they? An intelligent cause, a material cause, and an instrumental cause.
For example, to create a pot, there must be an intelligent cause called potter, there must be a material cause called clay, and there must be a potter's wheel which represents the instrumental cause. When these causes combine together in right proportions, then the result will be pot.
So before creation, Brahman is only one, one without a second. And therefore naturally the question comes: where are the three causes?
Then it is said: Brahman himself is the intelligent cause, Brahman himself is the material cause, Brahman himself is the instrumental cause.
The Dream Analogy
To understand this properly, many times we have mentioned the example, analogy of dream. So in the waking state, if I want to create a pot, then I must have that intelligence, so I will become the potter, intelligent cause. I must get the material which is totally different, separate from me, which is called clay. Then it becomes easier for me to make it if I can have a potter's wheel.
But when we go to the state called dream, we see we are the intelligent cause, we are the instrumental cause, we are the material cause. That is, consciousness becomes the intelligent cause. Consciousness, awareness, cidābāsa becomes the intelligent cause. Then a mind becomes the upādāna kāraṇa, that is material cause. Every material cause is inert, but there is an intelligent cause which takes up this non-intelligent material cause. Then what is the instrumental cause? Mind itself, through its thinking power, creates this entire dream world.
But while experiencing the dream world, if we are listening to these classes in the dream, then the same question comes: how can one Brahman become these three which are opposed? Because our experience in this world is everything that is produced—so parents are necessary, and they must come together, and they must be planning, and then there is a way their bodies become the material cause, and their union becomes the instrumental cause. Because even if they have bodies, if they don't become united, there are not going to be any babies. So babies will be like a pot be the result.
But what is the problem? Problem is: babies are different, the bodies of parents are different, and they can come and that which unites can also separate. So they are all separate, different. One cannot be the other.
Understanding Upon Awakening
But then when we wake up from the dream world, then we understand: I am the intelligent cause, my mind is the material cause, my mind also is the instrumental cause. I myself have created, and I myself have made my own enemy, my own friend, my own parents, my own house—both jaḍa as well as with cetanā. Both conscious as well as inert, everything has been created by me.
Exactly this is an analogy which can be applied to Brahman. So just as I am the intelligent cause, I am the material cause, I am the instrumental cause, so far as my dream is concerned, so also Brahman is both intelligent and material as well as the instrumental cause.
The Nature of Creation: Nāma-Rūpa
Then we have to keep in mind something very different. When we say "here is a tree," is this tree Brahman or not? For that, Advaita Vedānta definitely says not—Dvaita Vedānta—only Advaita Vedānta tells yes.
Brahman did not create separately like parents create a baby separately. Brahman, like—like the milk had become the curds. Even that example is not a very good example. Like a rope has become a false snake—that is a better example. There is no perfect example.
So when we see in semi-darkness, we are frightened of the snakes. When we see something and we presume it is a real snake, we don't say it is a mithyā snake. Only when light is brought up by some compassionate soul to remove our fear, and then shines the light upon that object, then two things happen: that we see the rope, we understand that there is no snake. Then we are entitled to say "I was imagining a mithyā snake."
So what is reality? Unable to perceive that reality, I am experiencing it because of my fright. So I mistook the rope for a snake. But at the time of seeing the snake, this knowledge will not come. Only when light is brought up, when jñānam comes, in the light of the jñānam—right jñānam, what is called samyak jñānam—will come. Then we see: really speaking, it is nothing but rope. That mithyā snake is nothing but rope.
And that mithyā in Vedānta has another name, and that is called nāma and rūpa, names and forms. So what is the creation? Brahman with names and forms. What is Brahman? The world without names and forms.
The Two Critical Questions
So this is what the pupils understood. So either one pupil has a doubt, more pupils have doubt—we don't know—but the questions are very, very meaningful. And if that thought has not arisen in us, then we will have to make ourselves more intelligent.
When you read the Gospel of Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa, I gave the example that we have seen: how, why God created so much of misery in this world? And Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa smilingly counter-questions the questioner. He says, "Who are you?" Because if you are thinking because of ignorance—God is separate, I am separate, he is the creator, I am the creator, I am not the creator, I am the created—therefore the creator and the created are totally separate. That is our normal knowledge.
But Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa is asking when particularly we are in suffering, in the state of suffering. Because as I mentioned earlier, when we are happy, we never question God, we never question any scripture, we never question any guru. Only when we are unhappy—and that is unfair, because God says, "Look here, were you not happy at some time?"
"Yes, yes, I was very happy." In fact, how much proportion you are happy, how much proportion you are unhappy now?
I am giving this task to you: each one of you who are listening, you make this analysis of how much time really you are happy, how much time you are unhappy. At least one-third of your life you are very happy, because when you are in the suṣupti state—and one-third of life is suṣupti state—then you are the happiest person. That is why you are at so much of peace, and you say "I was very happy." But as soon as you wake up, all the demons come and confront us in the waking state, also in the dream state.
The Questions Emerge
So this question should arise within us. But the compassionate scripture, on our behalf, is now putting some questions—beautiful questions.
What is the essence of this question? Sir, you are telling that Brahman became this entire world, and many times you told Brahman entered. So Brahman with nāma-rūpa is this entire creation. How many times, how many thousands of times you repeated that statement?
Okay, now what is my doubt? There are at least two types of people in this world: one, those who believe in God and lead a holy life—as I mentioned, discussed in today's class, to say that "I believe in God" is tantamount to say "I lead a spiritual life," nothing less, spiritual life. And to say that "I do not believe in God" is to lead a very sinful life, selfish life.
But what do we see? Most of the people—and as Swami Vivekānanda points out, rivers of, oceans of blood had been shed all in the name of God, in the name of religion. That doesn't show much reason why we should call any human being as an intelligent human being. Apart from that, in the name of religion, even today so much of conflict, so many wars are taking place.
The Logical Problem
Okay, so what is the question? Everything is Brahman. Is a good person Brahman? Is the person who says "I believe in God" and leading a good spiritual life—is he Brahman or not? Of course he is Brahman. Tato vidur iti.
And a person who doesn't believe in God, doesn't believe in the scriptures, doesn't lead a spiritual and selfish life—is he Brahman or not? Yes, he is Brahman.
So therefore the people, intelligent people, is putting a logical question. What is this logical question?
If there are two pots, one is a very beautiful pot, another is a broken pot—let us imagine, or ugly pot—when the beautiful pot is reduced to ashes, what does it become? Clay. When the ugly pot, broken pot is reduced to atoms, what does it become? Clay.
Because the effect must go back into its cause. Even what we call curds, yoghurt, also must go back—go back means what? Milk is another form. But the essence of the milk is proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals—only four. And if you analyse the curds or which is called yoghurt, it is the same four elements. So nothing is changed, only nāma or rūpa has changed.
So therefore, every effect must go back into its cause. And this is the rationality, this is the pure logic.
The First Question: Does Everyone Merge in Brahman?
Then whether a person is spiritual, unspiritual, selfish, unselfish, good, evil, god or demon—so at the end of life, he goes back into his cause, material cause. And material cause is nothing other than Brahman.
So therefore, naturally, sir, I have this big problem agitating my mind, churning my mind. What is that? So now my doubt: a person who doesn't know "I am Brahman"—that means a person who says "I don't believe in Brahman"—that means a person who is leading a very immoral, immoral, unethical, irrational life, what Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa used to call a worldly life, a madcap's life—at the end of the life, whatever way he lived, but when he gives up his body, etc., is he not going to merge in Brahman?
Because according to the law of causation, the effect must go back into the cause. By that law, whether a person is learned or not learned, spiritual or—that is terrible—worldly person, even what is called an asura, a rākṣasa, he should go back, he should become Brahman. After all, his cause is Brahman. He is Brahman only in the form of this person. Therefore it is natural.
That means what? Why should I bother to sit under your feet, to go 101 years—what is called spend 101 years like Indra had to spend? Virocana had to spend only 32 years; after that he never came back. So Indra had persisted, and total number of years he had to live in order to have full knowledge, which is 101 years: 3 into 32, and for the final instruction 5 years—96 plus 5, 101 years.
So what is the use of wasting time? Why are you talking about punarjanma? Why are you talking about what is called 82 crores of lives? You are talking so many things. I don't need to do anything. Keep it, enjoy it. So I can lead whatever way I like. Since I am Brahman, I came from Brahman, I am going to become Brahman. What is the use of performing all these spiritual practices?
The Second Question: Does a Believer Also Just Merge?
And in the second, he makes this point—second question—very, very clear. What is that?
Means on the other hand, with one who has faith in the scriptures, Vedas, and he believes every Brahman—with name and form, Brahman became the entire creation. Brahman in the form of creation means Brahman plus names and forms; that is called creation. When he dies—that means his physical body is given up, pretya—so will he also attain?
So very, very subtle question. What is its question? Where is the need to lead a good life? I can be leading my life provided—you know, here also we have to think about it—I am an intelligent person, so I don't go on drinking poison. But I want to make myself happy. Maybe I am a good person, I don't want to hurt other people. But I work hard, I invent things, I patent them, and I earn lot of money. After all, it is my intelligence. I have produced those things. I am not deviating even what is called dharma. And therefore I have a right to enjoy this world.
And after death, definitely I should be able to go back into my own real nature. Even if I do not know "I am Brahman," even if I do not know "I am God," I must go back to God.
The Importance of These Questions
I have taken this entire class mainly because of these two questions, because ordinarily these questions do not arise in our mind. But we should be able to question ourselves if we are studying the Upaniṣads properly. And this is a marvellous topic.
And for that purpose, first of all: is there Brahman? Because if only taking for granted that God exists, Brahman exists, all these problems will come. Whether a person should lead a happy, a moral life, or should not lead any moral life—karmaphala, punarjanma, and caurāśī lakh janma—all these will come only if a person believes that there is Brahman, there is creation, etc.
So in order to prove Brahman does exist, only on that basis these two questions can arise. Yes, Brahman does exist, because of those seven reasons given. As I said, logic cannot prove the existence of God, but to some extent it can help us remove certain types of doubts.
The Essential Dilemma
So Brahman exists. If Brahman exists, everything is Brahman. Sarvam khalvidam brahma. If everything is Brahman, then where is the need for spiritual practice? Because whatever way a person leads a life, he should be able to attain Brahman. And once a person merges in Brahman, then the question of punarjanma doesn't arise.
This is the essence of these questions which we will talk about in our next class.
Closing Prayer
ॐ जननीम् शरदाम् देविम् रामक्रिष्णम् जगत् गुर्म्
पादपद्मे तयोः स्रित्वाः प्रणमामि मुहुरुमु
Oṁ jananīṁ śaraḍhāṁ deviṁ rāmakriṣṇam jagad-gurum
pādapadmetayosritvā pranamāmi-muhurumuhu
May Sri Ramakrishna, Holy Mother and Swami Vivekananda bless us all with Bhakti. Jai Ramakrishna!