Wiki Vedanta - User contributions [en]

Mandukya Karika Lecture 108 on 21-June-2023

2023-06-21T18:18:17Z

Bhamav: Edited the last question.

== Full Transcript ==
We have been studying the third chapter called Advaita Prakarana and it is all Gaudapada's teachings. Now he wants to see that we get the idea Jeeva is never created that means I am not created, you are not created, nobody is created, the world is not created, nothing is created and yet we can never understand this idea because we for example we who are attending this class all our idea is this world is real, we are in bondage, we are suffering and the scriptures are telling us a Samsara is a bondage and there is a way out. This was what we discussed a few shlokas earlier. What did we discuss? Gaudapada is clearly telling us the whole world is a Mithya. Why do we want to attend classes in the beginning? For the first and only reason is that we have tried Samsara, it did not work out and we could not find any other way, but the scriptures tell if we turn to spiritual life we can get out of this Samsara. Therefore, what is the point? Samsara cannot give us any, show us any path, give us any relief and more importantly cannot give us unbroken happiness. So, important point we have to always keep in mind from the Advaitic point of view, Mithya, Mithya, Mithya is a delusion, it is not unreal, neither it is real. That is the technical explanation of Mithya which is neither real nor unreal and those concepts are very hard for us to even understand let alone accept, but one fact is there and we are all experiencing it and we have to apply that fact. What is it? Everything that is born is going to die and this is called six-fold changes and life is most of the time not pleasant, that is another fact, but the most important fact is everything is changing. Time means change, everything is changing, that there is a psychological scientific law. If we have to know something is changing we should be unchanging. Any changing entity can never know another changing entity, it is only an unchanging entity that can know about the changing entity and a changing entity can never be the unchanging entity and the unchanging can never be the changing. In simple words, a subject can never be the object, the object can never be the subject. Another important point is whatever is the object totally depends for its very existence, for its very recognition upon the subject. By definition every object is non-conscious, jada, and by definition subject is nothing but pure consciousness, not even a mixture of chaitanyam and jada, chitta and jada, no, pure consciousness. But we are in a peculiar state, we have got a body-mind which in technical language is called jada and this body-mind complex is identified with the chaitanyam. Chaitanyam is identified with the body-mind complex, so it came to be known as jivatma and this jiva, very interesting fact is when the body is cut into pieces or burned or hurt anyway, the body, poor body will never know because it is jada, it is only the mind which is associated with consciousness that is called chidabhasa, reflection of the consciousness, that means there must be a reflector, a mirror, jada, so a pure consciousness reflecting in the medium of the buddhi called the mind that alone cognizes I am hurt, I am happy, I am young, I am old, I am ill, I am well, etc. So this idea of mithya, don't bring in the idea of something very peculiar, incomprehensible, bring always the idea everything is changing, everything, my body is changing, the whole world is changing, my mind is changing, everybody's mind is also changing and I am born, everybody is born, I am going to die, everybody is going to die but I am struggling to keep alive, I am struggling to be wise, to get absolute knowledge and I am struggling to obtain unbroken happiness, there is first of all no unbroken happiness in the world, secondly even if it be there for the sake of argument but when we are looking at the so-called unbroken happiness in the world, so long as we try to grasp it through the medium of body-mind, it will be limited only, limited in time, limited in space also, quantity also, it is impossible, then how can I get, first of all get out of the body and mind, when we get out of the body-mind, do you know what happens? Even the entire world will disappear, not only my body will disappear, when my Sthola Sarira disappears, the entire Jagrat Prapancha disappears, when my Sukshma Sarira disappears, our entire dream world disappears, how do we know? Because when we enter into the very natural state called sleeping state, we are only in indescribable bliss, Ananda, that is why it is called Ananda Mayakosha because the limitations of the body is too much, the limitations of the mind is also too much but both these limitations we overcome in the state called Sushupti, but there is also a limitation there, it is called Karana Sarira, and so after a few hours we are forced to wake up and again enter into that state of Jagrath and Swapna. Therefore, through the limited instrument, even if there is unlimited something outside, through limited instrument we can never get unlimited something, that is how the concept of Nithya can help us, but we want unlimited existence, unlimited knowledge, unlimited unbroken happiness called Sat, Chit and Ananda, is it possible? Yes, it is possible, not only possible, it is inevitable and the concept is I am not going to attain Mukti, why? Because I am already free, like a person who is dreaming that he is bound, he is actually free, nobody bound him but then his own thoughts bind him, he feels I am bound and what should he do to get out of that state of bondage? He simply has to wake up, as soon as he wakes up he says, oh I am in my own bed and I am completely free and so many things are there, marvellous things, so that is how this waking up from imagined bondage is the concept of Mukti by Advaita Vedanta. Now, this is what Gaudapada wants to say that you are not in bondage, the world also is not in bondage, what is bondage? Birth, I am born, you are born, everything in the world is born, he wants to prove that's a wrong idea and he is giving some logical reasons for that and this is what we have been seeing since the last class. Now, in my last class we were discussing about 26th Karika or Shloka of the third chapter called Advaita Prakarana. As I mentioned many times Gaudapada's language, I wish he sat down at the feet of Shankaracharya and learnt Sanskrit all over so that the teachings are absolutely marvellous, but the language is atrocious language, but that is what he is, unfortunately Shankaracharya came later and Gaudapada was his grand guru, guru's guru, paramaguru, so his language we have to accept because it is what we call sugarcane juice. Rasogulla juice is also very enjoyable, sweet, sugarcane juice also is very enjoyable juice. So, what is the problem? Problem is Rasogulla is extremely easy to squeeze the Rasam, all that you need to do is take the trouble of opening your mouth, but the sugarcane juice, Chakshu Rasam, my God, you have to bring it, cut it into pieces and you know and then put it and then you are Vedantin Kanavarchu and here you have to go on chewing, chewing, chewing and it may hurt also and then some Rasam will come, then you say, ah so marvellous it is. This is the difference between Shankara's language and Gaudapada's language. One is Amra Rasam, especially remember in Andhra Pradesh we have Rasalu. Rasalu, a type of mango is just cut at the edge like opening up the coca-cola bottle and tilt it into your mouth and gently squeeze, Rasam will be flowing. Shankaracharya's everything that he has written is such marvellous thing, but this Gaudapada's is is like getting the juice from the sugarcane. Anyway, great man. So, what is he talking here earlier? From earlier onwards he is telling this world really doesn't exist. Is it true? Absolutely true, but for us it is very difficult to understand. For that he gave earlier some hints. One of the hints is when we are dreaming and that example is going to come here very, very soon, any number of times it will come. When we are dreaming, if I come and tell you that this world is unreal, not only it is unreal, actually it is your own creation, especially very hard to believe. So, you are dreaming that somebody is coming and beating you black and blue. At that time I come and tell you, I start Raha. What a beautiful incident is happening here and you are likely to shoot me with whatever implement you have at hand. Why? I am suffering I am suffering so much. Somebody is beating me black and blue. Instead of helping me, you are enjoying this scene. What type of man you are? So, that would be the same teaching Gaudapada wants to tell us. Even when you are suffering in this so-called waking state, that suffering is also of the same value as the dream. It is a beautiful example, we have to digest it. When we are dreaming, it is not a dream. So also, when we are experiencing this waking state, it is no different from the dream. What is the comparison between these two? The dream comes to an end and this dream called waking state also will come to an end. When we go into the dream state, the waking state comes to an end. When we wake up, the dream state comes to an end. But when we enter into the dream state, the waking state also comes to an end. We don't take notice of it. We only take notice of the end of the dream state. Everything seems to be real in the dream. Everything absolutely seems to be real in the waking state. But when we enter into the other state, every other state becomes unreal. So, we are swinging between reality, so-called reality and unreality. But there is a witness who is swinging, who is observing the change and he is neither a wakened person, nor a dreaming person, nor a sleeping person. He is called Duryaha in the fourth state. This is the point. So, at this state of our consciousness, the meaning we have to take for Mithya or Maya is everything is changing. So, today I may be very happy. I may have been very happy for a long time but one millisecond change will come and then the more happy we were, the more unhappy we will become equally. These are some of the points to keep in background before we go into this. Now, what is the God of Adas struggling to convey to us? That Brahman, the supreme reality, has never become the world. Then earlier we have seen, then why do the scriptures speak of creation? That is for the children who cannot understand that a dream is a dream. It is not reality. So, it is first as if they accept the truth and later on to deny it, that actually you are, when the scriptures, Upanishads tell us, you are not the Dehi, you are not the body, you are not the mind. The idea conveyed is exactly what Gauda Pada is trying to tell us. If you are not the body, entire Stola Prapancha also disappears. When you are not the mind, the entire Sukshma Prapancha will disappear and when we are told you are not even the Karana Deha, causal body, then the entire Karana Prapancha also will disappear. There will be no Prapancha at all. But what remains? The pure consciousness remains and that is everyday experience. So, Gauda Pada is not telling something strange, peculiar, but he is emphasizing very emphatically some things. That is why we consider him, that this particular theory he is trying to propagate is called Ajatiya Bhava, Ajati. Ajati means not caste, Jati means birth. What is it? The Jiva is never born, the world also is never born, but very hard to accept and very hard to implement. But we will be forced to do it today or tomorrow, whatever it is, there is no doubt about it. Now in this 26th Parika, what is he telling? That the scripture itself is telling and we know. What is it? Sa Esaha, that Atman, the Shruti passage there. It is not this Neti Neti. Where is this Neti Neti? The words come in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 4th chapter, 2nd section, 4th mantra says Sa Esaha, Saha means that, Esaha means Atma, Neti Neti, it is called Neti Neti, neither the Amurta Prapancha nor the Amurta Prapancha, neither what is experienced as manifest and experienced also. Now we don't really experience but we guess, unmanifest world. Neti Neti Atma Agrahyaha Nahi Grihyate Because what it is very difficult to deny the unreality of what we are experiencing and we can never experience what is unmanifest, but we have to believe there is unmanifest and this is what Yajnavalkya was teaching that there is only one word, Neti Neti. Everything is to be denied. Finally what in the summary? Body has to be denied, mind has to be denied, Karana Sharira is also to be denied, then to deny there must be somebody. I am not this to say that I must be there. I am not the Stola Prapancha, I must be there. I am not the Sokshma Prapancha, I must be there. Both these are called Amurta Prapancha and Nidra Prapancha, Karana Sharira that is called unmanifest and therefore there also I am not Karana Sharira. And then what remains? All the three forms disappear. What remains? I, the denier, the negator alone will remain. That is why it is said here so very difficult to understand. In the Upanishad, we have to understand this has been categorically declared as what this Atma is. Not the body, not the mind, not the Karana Sharira. Nihnuteyapaha. Nihnuteyapaha means negates. Everything is negated as not this, not this. Sarvam agrahya bhavena. So when everything is negated, can we understand that one? Very difficult. That is why it is called agrahya means extremely difficult to understand intellectually. There are many things which are real but not acceptable, not understandable by the mind. So that is what he says but we can become one. Why? Ununderstandable because the five sense organs will not work there. The mind also will not work there. Therefore it is not possible for us to grasp it. That is why ito vacho nivartante aprapya manasasaha where along with the mind, along with the speech, both of them return because how can you describe what is beyond both mind and body but that is what the scripture is telling. So we have to accept it. Sarvam agrahya bhavena. Hetuna ajam rakasate. When everything is denied, what remains? The denier, the negator. Who is the negator? If I am not the body and mind, it is Atman alone. I am that Atman. Very difficult to understand it. So that is what we have discussed. I am not the body, I am not the mind but still what am I? We have to understand I am Atman, I am Brahman. Then in another two three karikas, Audhapada is trying to prove the same fact. There is no birth of either Jiva or the world. Same thing he is repeating it in different words and through Yukti, not only through Shruti, through Yukti. So 27th karika. Satohi mayaya janma yujyate, natu tatvatah. Tatvatah jayate sya, jatam tasya jayate. So what does it mean? Means that which is ever existed appears to pass into birth through illusion, through maya and not from the standpoint of reality. He who thinks that this passing into birth is real asserts as a matter of fact that what is born is born again. What is born is born again. As I said, this requires very sharp intellect to understand through logic but really it is very simple. What do these scriptures tell about Brahman? That he is Ajam, unborn. He is Ekam, he is only one and he is Anantam, he is infinite and he is Nityam. Ajo Nityah Sasvatayam. He is Ajah, unborn. He is Nityah, he is eternal. That means changeless. Brahman is changeless and if anybody says that this world has come from Brahman, why do we say? Because our own daily experience tells where from have I come? Ultimately we have to trace it from God only we have come. Instead of using the word God we are using the word here Sataha or Brahman. So we are firmly believing there is a creation because I am there, my body is there, my mind is there and I am studying the Pandukya world only because of the body-mind. How can I deny it? If anybody thinks logically what do the scriptures tell? Brahman is Ajah, Nityah, Ekah and he is Anantah. There is nobody else, he is infinite etc. etc. Now a logic a little bit. Let me first give an example. Supposing there is milk and when the milk becomes curds, is it changed or not? What is our experience? It is changed. So the milk doesn't remain as milk. It is available only as curds and curds also can you do? Very interesting point. Then it can become butter. So curds is disappeared. What it becomes? What does it become? Buttermilk. Buttermilk is a very strange word I explained many times. There is neither butter nor milk. That peculiar something which is left over after churning the butter and removing the butter is called buttermilk. Is it milk? No. Is it butter? No, it has been taken away. So what is the point? Milk doesn't remain as milk. So what does it, what is the logic is telling? Logic is the scriptures tell Brahman is changeless. Brahman is changeless like milk. But if the milk becomes curds, that is if you say that this Brahman has given birth to this creation, it is like milk becoming curds. That means Brahman will not remain ajaha, Brahman will not remain ekaha, Brahman will not remain nityaha, Brahman will not remain anantaha. He becomes finite and he becomes limited. All the opposite qualities will come. Do you accept that? No, it cannot be accepted. I hope you understand. So then how do you explain? Because we are experiencing the world and you are telling, you dare to come and tell me that Brahman has never becomes creation. But I am in the creation. I see the whole world world and it can be only attributed to God. How do you explain for that? They have a cunningly another type of argument. It is called vivartavada. Don't you see a snake? Yes. So when you see a snake, do you doubt it is a snake? No. And do you see the rope? No. Then when light is brought up, do you see the snake? No. What do you see? Rope. Now I ask you, is the rope worthless or not? Because whatever you were thinking earlier, this rope must have become a snake. Try to understand the analogy. That's all. So the rope has become a snake. Now what happened? The snake has again gone back into the condition of the rope. Do any one of us accept this? It's ridiculous. There was never any snake. I am only thinking there is a snake. Exactly. I'm thinking there is samsara. It is my thought. It is my delusional thought. It is my illogical thought. It is my ignorant thought. Really speaking, there is no samsara. How do we know? Because, very simple, when you go to sleep, do you experience the samsara? Do you experience sukha-dukha? Do you even know that you are a man or a woman? Do you know that you are a prisoner or you are a prison inspector? All those distinctions between myself and everything else will disappear. And then that is why that is a state of advaya, temporary advaita sthiti. That's why we are so happy. But when we wake up, we understand that that is the state experienced by the mindless state. Mind itself has merged into another state. This is also another example given. Sleep, there is no samsara. And nirvikalpa samadhi also, there is no samsara. Then, what is the difference between these two? The difference is enormous. What is the first difference? That you cannot go into sleep. When the sleep comes, it will come. It has its own sweet will. All that you can do is surrender yourself to it. Similarly, if you surrender to God, then only nirvikalpa samadhi will come, not otherwise. That is the first limitation. And then is it permanent or temporary? Sleep, I'm talking about sleep. It is temporary. So that is another thing. But the most important difference is, are you conscious that you are sleeping? Not really. But when you enter into nirvikalpa samadhi, I am Brahman, is a continuous state. It is permanent state and we are fully conscious. There is no unconsciousness there. After deep sleep, we wake up. Oh, it was so marvellous. I did not know how time passed. But when you enter into nirvikalpa samadhi, you don't wake up into another state. Oh, that was marvellous. And I experienced it. Marvellous joy. Never before in my life I experienced it. It is a permanent state. So sleep is temporary, nirvikalpa samadhi is permanent. In sleep, there is already a seed for waking up. In nirvikalpa samadhi, there is no seed for samsara. In sleep, we are not conscious. In nirvikalpa samadhi, we are fully conscious. So, this is why sleep is given as an example. Don't take it as a permanent state. But it gives a hint what samadhi really could be. With this background, let's come back to this 27th verse. Sataha means the ever-existent Brahman. Mayaya janma, that has taken birth as Jivatma, as this world, as I, as you and anybody else. Yujyate mayaya. Only because of maya, it appears as if the rope has become the snake. Natu tattvataha. Tattvataha means in reality Brahman can never become anything. It remains only Brahman. Ajam nirvikalpam. Tattvataha. And then he gives a beautiful analogy. Tattvataha jayate yasya. Jatam tasya hi jayate. Supposing, for argument's sake, Brahman has really become samsara. How does Brahman can become samsara in reality? Like milk really changing into curds. That means Brahman cannot remain as Brahman. If Brahman doesn't remain in Brahman, have you ever seen at any time milk has become curds and after one hour I'm tired of being curds. I will go back into the milk state. Have you ever seen permanent change? So this is the first argument. What is the second argument? Brahman, anything that is changing cannot be the final cause. Everything that is changing has come out of something else. So if we attribute this argument to Brahman and if Brahman really has become samsara, that means it is changing. So Brahman is changing. A changing Brahman cannot be the final cause. It must be having some other cause. And if you go on saying like that, that next cause which gave birth to Brahman must also be changing because it has given birth to Brahman. And the second Brahman also because it gave birth, it is a changing Brahman. So we enter into what is called infinite regress. That is not desirable. So Brahman never becomes the creation. That means if Brahman is not the cause, if there is no cause there is also no effect. If Brahman is not the cause, samsara also will disappear. There will be no samsara. But what is our experience? We see the samsara. So for that what is the explanation? Temporary explanation is like our mistaking a rope for a snake. When the light is brought out, then we clearly recognize that there was no snake. It was only because of my fear I imagined. So imagination is not reality and we find this greatest mistake that we commit in life is called Shobhana Adhyasa. That certain things if I obtain, whole life I will be happy. Actually I will not be happy. Ramakrishna gives a beautiful example. An old man married a young girl and ever since his marriage he kept on becoming a watchman. 24 hours watching his wife whether she is sporting with somebody young man or the other. So to put it simply what it means Brahman never has given birth. This samsara is only just a mistake in our mind. Mind is the real problem. How do we know? Because when the mind merges in sleeping state there was no samsara. There was no dukkha. A prisoner is not a prisoner. A man to be hanged is not going to be hanged and we know this very clearly. So this is all I can explain in the simplest way possible. That is what Gaudapada wants to say. That which is ever existent, that means never changing, appears to pass into birth, appears to change, that is becoming the samsara only through illusion because of maya and where is that maya? In our mind. That means we are interpreting Brahman as if it is making creation, not really. From the Brahman's point of view there is no creation. From our point of view there is creation. It is all a trick of the mind and not from the standpoint of reality. He who thinks that this passing into birth is real, really is committing a logical fallacy. What is that fallacy? That which if at all if it is born, it is a changing factor and a changing factor can never be the cause of anything because it itself is the cause of, itself is the effect of something else. Therefore, we enter into infinite regress. What is the scripture saying? Ajah and Baran. Nityah, eternal. Eternal means what? Never changing. Anantah, that means he is one. Anantah, infinite. It is not a number of parts put together. It is infinite, means one only. So, what is the samsara? It is ever-changing. It is not one and Brahman is Brahmananda Swaroopa. What is this world? Sukha Dukha Swaroopa. Sometimes happy, sometimes unhappy because it is changing, ever-changing. I hope I was able to convey this logical contradiction will come if we accept that Brahman has really become the samsara. But remember, that is the highest truth. But we, for us, samsara is real. What should we do? You will not understand also real. Until we become Brahman, it is not possible to understand this statement. Then what is our duty? Our duty is to worship the same Brahman as Saguna Brahma, as the creator. Live a good life according to the directions of the scriptures and then slowly mind becomes purer. That means desires become less. That means the happiness is produced from within. We don't depend upon anything external for our happiness. We depend upon God which is our own real self within. So, the less we have desires, the less it becomes distracted, the more concentrated it becomes and there only we intuit that divine. This is called progressing in spiritual life. This is called approaching God nearer and nearer and the nearer we approach God, the more we become Sat, Chit and Ananda Swaroopa and that is how we have to progress in life. Then what happens? Finally, we cannot, we are able to think only of God and that one thought of God, the Saguna Brahma is called, it goes by the name Brahmakara Vritti and once we attain Brahmakara Vritti, the effort of the mind comes to an end and then something takes over that Ishwara called Saguna Brahma and we go so near. Just as a piece of thin paper approaches, is taken to a fire, when it is sufficiently nearer the fire, it becomes so hot, very soon it bursts into flames. Like that, the Brahmakara Vritti is destroyed by Brahman. That Vritti called Akara is destroyed, what remains is Brahman. Brahmakara Vritti, that Akara Vritti is destroyed, what remains is Brahman and this same idea we discussed in this 27th is repeated with an example by Gaudapada. First of all the example, Vandhya Putra, beautiful words, a son of a barren woman, woman is there but she is barren and she has a son. We can use words but is it real? Is that really? So, na tatvena, either really, mayaya or even through the power of illusion. Vandhya Putra na jayate, it is impossible to imagine the birth of a barren woman but we can use it for the sake of play. This is the example, with this example what does Gaudapada wants to say? Asataha mayaya janma tatvataha naiva yujyate, whether Brahman becomes this samsara. Asataha tatvataha. Asataha means what? Unreally. Tatvataha means really. Just as Vandhya Putra, really or delusionally cannot be born. Creation also, really creation cannot be born for the reasons we discussed earlier and unreally also. That is what he is trying to tell us. This samsara is called unreal. The snake is unreal because we are experiencing it, we are forced to tell it is unreal. So, just as Vandhya Putra's existence, existence of the world is also either really or magically it is not possible. So, creation is not possible at all. Is this the correct statement? Yes, that is what, really speaking that is what is the truth but this truth can never be understood at this stage of our development. So, what should we do? I told you just now, you go on doing Upasana, you have to go on doing worship, Tirtha Yatra, scriptural study, attend the classes, become. There is here also a point I have to remind, so many people do it but their selfishness will never go away. So, the purpose of all these spiritual activities is to reduce our selfishness. So, we have to share whatever we have to the extent possible with others because there is no other. Everybody is a God only but without becoming unselfish there are billions of people who go on doing. Not only they don't become unselfish, they will become more selfish, more cruel like some religions. If you do not accept our religion, we are going to cut your throat, we are going to in the name and this country belongs to us. It is one country, one country policy and go on trying to occupy, to kill people and they do not understand how much suffering they have to undergo in future as a result of these evil activities. So, to reinforce what we discussed, there is no real creation but we are experiencing creation only because of Maya. Maya creation is not real creation therefore even when we are experiencing the snake, there is no real snake. If somebody pushes you towards that snake, you may die because of your fight but if you fall upon that snake, neither that snake is going to die nor you are going to die because there is no real snake. You are falling upon really only a rope. Even if you fall by mistake or somebody forcibly wants you to die, pushes you onto that snake, you are not going to die because the snake is unreal. An unreal snake cannot do really anything and to reinforce that one, in the 29th Karika, Gaudapada is giving us another example. We have discussed this point especially in the second chapter called Vaitatya Prakarna. What does it mean? Just as in a dream, the mind acts through Maya presenting the appearance of reality, so also in the waking state, the mind acts as though Maya presenting the appearance of reality. What does it mean? I hope it is not too difficult. When you go to dream state, whatever you are experiencing is unreal but you may not realize that it is unreal so long as you are dreaming but when you wake up you understand somebody praises you that is not unreal while experiencing dream. Somebody criticizes you that is also real so long as you are dreaming. You will not accept it but then what is the point? Dvaya Vasa means the whole dream world is created by your mind, by my mind, by anybody's mind, whoever is dreaming and Dvaya means duality. What is the duality? I and everything else. In this waking state also there are only two things, don't say millions of things, only two things, I and everything else. I fall into one category, everything else falls into second category, only two. So just as in this Vapana, in the dream, the mind because of its Samskaras creates this duality of the subject and objects. How many subjects? Only one subject. How many objects? Can be many number of objects. So Spandate that means created by whom? By Manaha. And how does it create? Maya. Here Maya means what? Its Samskaras. That is if you are happy that is one Samskara. In the dream if somebody is beating you up that is another Samskara but when you wake up you understand the reality of both what you gained, what you lost, everything is absolutely nothing because nothing really happened. With that example, if we understand that example apply it to the waking state. Tatha, exactly the same way. Jagrat Dvaya Avasam. In this waking state also there are only two things, I and everything else. And who creates this division? Manaha. Our mind only creates in the waking state also I am the subject, everything else is the object. And how does it create? Through Maya. What is the Maya? Maya is here Purva Janma Samskara. Purva Janma Karma Krita Samskara. How? Purva Janma Karma Phalaha. That is what is called Prarabdha. Who created this body? Me. Who created this mind? Me. If I am a good person who made me good? Me. If I am an evil person who created me? Me only. So this is called, earlier I discussed with some length what is called Drishti Srishti Vada and Srishti Drishti Vada. The essence of it is that I am the creator of the entire world and a raw material is God. But how I fashioned it is my own Samskara. So this is a beautiful point and what does Gaudapada wants to convey? Really there is no creation, it is a seeming creation. How do we know? Because whatever we create both in the waking state as well as in the dream state, as soon as we enter into the sleeping state both of them completely disappear and whatever disappears can never be real.

== Questions ==
I just want to know is it fair to understand that in reality this whole of the Samsara, Jiva, Jagat, Ishwara, everything is an incredibly beautiful dream of Brahman himself? Yes, at this moment don't say Brahman because Brahman never dreams. I don't know. Let us say me the Jiva through my Samskara just as I am creating the dream and that we understand easily upon waking up. But unfortunately we don't wake up from this waking state so we can never understand, equate it with the dream state. We can understand through logic when we enter suppose you are in UK, you dream you are in India. When do you realize that you are never in India? While waking up. Only upon waking up isn't it? Yeah. So who created that illusion that I am in India? Myself. Exactly. So important simple point is everything is changing. Many times we discuss waking is changing into dream. Dream is changing into sleep. Yeah. And sleep is again changing into waking. Correct. So the point is for this you don't need to be very spiritual. Correct. Everything is changing is everybody's experience isn't it? Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And you cannot, what is our problem? Our problem is we are expecting some things should not change. That is when I am happy it should continue isn't it? And never should I encounter unhappiness isn't it? Yeah. But if everything is changing will this be changing or will it remain according to your wish? According to the wish. Are changing factors or not? In reality not. So emphasize, hold on to that. I was born, I was a baby, I was grown up, I was married. Now I am in my declining stage or ascending stage. Declining but actually a delightful stage. Very good. So not really a decline, not in declining definitely not declining because this is the time when is one is really waking up. So how can it be declining? Okay, you be in that state only. There's just one little question. Who is it that is seeking? The self is seeking its own self? No, neither the self is seeking nor the mind is seeking. It is a combination of the self with the mind because the mind will not work without the self. And the self itself will not be able to express seeking or non-seeking without the mind. This combination of the mind, this concept of Jivatma itself we are confused. Jivatma means a combination of Chit and the mind. The Chidambhasa, isn't it? The nearer we are able to, isn't the seeking gross? So you understand now it is neither the self nor the mind but a combination of body and mind. But the more the mind is getting purified, the seeking grows even more, isn't it? Seeking grows but its direction, the object is self.

So Maharaj, in effect the root causes of all those issues and challenges is the mind itself. Correct. Absolutely correct. And the spiritual practices helps us purify that mind to get to that state where it becomes very clear about Brahman. Correct. Absolutely. Okay. So as we progress in spiritual life, what happens is what we are seeking in the outside world until now, what are we seeking? Happiness, isn't it? Yes, Maharaj. As we progress in spiritual life without depending upon any object in the world, our happiness is growing, isn't it? Yes, Maharaj. That means our desires are redundant, isn't it? Yes, Maharaj. That means the mind doesn't become agitated, correct? Yes. And so that is how slowly our desires become less, that is called Chitta Shuddhi, purification of the heart. Okay, Maharaj. So Maharaj, these teachings in that sense has very strong linearity with psychiatry or psychology. Yes, I told you about a particular psychological treatment, CBT. That is very, very useful. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, CBT, that is bring about in the cognition, that is cognitive means change in our thinking process. Okay. So the events, the world, it will not change, but how it impacts our mind, that can be changed and that training is no less than spiritual sadhana. Okay. In that way, this psychology is very much helpful. Our whole problem is what? Mind. That's why I told you when in the deep sleep, what happens to the mind? Mind doesn't function and therefore is there any problem? Nope. And so bondage as well as liberation. There is a beautiful verse, mind alone is the root cause of both bondage and then liberation and you apply it to any worldly situation. Any worldly situation, it is only the thought process, bring about a change in the thought process. Understand? Yes, Maharaj. In fact, I would go so far as to say that spiritual life has nothing to do with spirit. It is only bringing about a change in the thinking. Mind. Yes, when your mind becomes so pure that there would be only Brahman remaining, nothing else remains, isn't it? Yes, Maharaj. Imagine as a room in your house, thousands of things are there and brilliant light is illuminating all those things. They create either happiness or unhappiness and start throwing out one after the other the objects. Ultimately, no object is there excepting empty room and brilliant light. Our mind will become filled with that light. The more things we throw out, the more light is manifest, pure light is manifest. That is called spiritual progress.

At one point, Swamiji tells Thakur that [he declares] that avidya maya is also vidya maya and then Thakur responds that no, no, not at this stage but that will come at the final. Can you please explain that? I have been talking about this in Shwetashwatara Upanishad class very, very elaborately, isn't it? Yes, Maharaj. Avidya is coming from God, isn't it? Yeah. So, what comes out from God, will it ever be bad? No. That is why I took so much time to explain. These stupid people don't understand that. They invented this word maya and ruined the whole India, not only spiritually but politically also, lot of problems because of this misunderstanding. The point is avidya is a preparatory stage called karmakanda and vidya maya or jnanakanda is possible only when avidya prepares us to enter into that stage, isn't it? Yes, Maharaj. This is the relationship between avidya and vidya. They are not opposed, they are not enemies, but they are a lower step and a higher. But Maharaj, Swamiji was an advanced spiritual aspirant, and he was already on the path of the vidya maya only. So, why does Thakur tell Swamiji that it is too early to declare that avidya is also vidya? Because he had to go through the phase like any one of us; so that when we encounter Swamiji and ask his guidance, he can tell from his own experience that at one point of time I was also like this, and this is what my Guru told me, and this is what I am conveying to you. Was there any necessity for Swamiji to go through sadhana? He was a Rishi, one of the Saptarishis. Then whatever he has gone through is for what purpose? For our edification. In fact, Sri Ramakrishna had done so many years, more than 12 years of sadhana for his sake or for our sake? For our sake. We have to remember that. That's what Swami Saradananda explains beautifully - What is the difference between Thakur sadhana and our sadhana? He gave a beautiful analogy. Sri Ramakrishna himself tells later on this one. Our eyes are not only covered completely as though with150 screws, [I am adding that], 150 screws have been secured so that any amount of effort will not help. Whereas the Avatar Purusha, he is covering with his own hands his eyes. He knows I will pretend to be blind but anytime I want to see, I can see. That is why he is Janma Karma Chame Divyam Evam Yo Veti Tattvata. Very difficult to understand. People think I am also in trouble, I am also born, and I am also going through all these things. It is true, but voluntarily it is done. He is not born as a result of Karma Phala. But that is according to scriptures. According to me, He is born only because of Karma Phala. You understand? If you create a mess in your kitchen, who will have to clean it up? I will have to clean it up. He created this mess called Samsara. So, who would have to clean it up? Oh, like that. You understand now? Yes, Maharaj. I tell this Parama Rahasya only to my disciples. Sure, Maharaj. Thank you!

Mandukya Karika Lecture 108 on 21-June-2023

2023-06-21T18:03:45Z

Bhamav: Edited the last question.

== Full Transcript ==
We have been studying the third chapter called Advaita Prakarana and it is all Gaudapada's teachings. Now he wants to see that we get the idea Jeeva is never created that means I am not created, you are not created, nobody is created, the world is not created, nothing is created and yet we can never understand this idea because we for example we who are attending this class all our idea is this world is real, we are in bondage, we are suffering and the scriptures are telling us a Samsara is a bondage and there is a way out. This was what we discussed a few shlokas earlier. What did we discuss? Gaudapada is clearly telling us the whole world is a Mithya. Why do we want to attend classes in the beginning? For the first and only reason is that we have tried Samsara, it did not work out and we could not find any other way, but the scriptures tell if we turn to spiritual life we can get out of this Samsara. Therefore, what is the point? Samsara cannot give us any, show us any path, give us any relief and more importantly cannot give us unbroken happiness. So, important point we have to always keep in mind from the Advaitic point of view, Mithya, Mithya, Mithya is a delusion, it is not unreal, neither it is real. That is the technical explanation of Mithya which is neither real nor unreal and those concepts are very hard for us to even understand let alone accept, but one fact is there and we are all experiencing it and we have to apply that fact. What is it? Everything that is born is going to die and this is called six-fold changes and life is most of the time not pleasant, that is another fact, but the most important fact is everything is changing. Time means change, everything is changing, that there is a psychological scientific law. If we have to know something is changing we should be unchanging. Any changing entity can never know another changing entity, it is only an unchanging entity that can know about the changing entity and a changing entity can never be the unchanging entity and the unchanging can never be the changing. In simple words, a subject can never be the object, the object can never be the subject. Another important point is whatever is the object totally depends for its very existence, for its very recognition upon the subject. By definition every object is non-conscious, jada, and by definition subject is nothing but pure consciousness, not even a mixture of chaitanyam and jada, chitta and jada, no, pure consciousness. But we are in a peculiar state, we have got a body-mind which in technical language is called jada and this body-mind complex is identified with the chaitanyam. Chaitanyam is identified with the body-mind complex, so it came to be known as jivatma and this jiva, very interesting fact is when the body is cut into pieces or burned or hurt anyway, the body, poor body will never know because it is jada, it is only the mind which is associated with consciousness that is called chidabhasa, reflection of the consciousness, that means there must be a reflector, a mirror, jada, so a pure consciousness reflecting in the medium of the buddhi called the mind that alone cognizes I am hurt, I am happy, I am young, I am old, I am ill, I am well, etc. So this idea of mithya, don't bring in the idea of something very peculiar, incomprehensible, bring always the idea everything is changing, everything, my body is changing, the whole world is changing, my mind is changing, everybody's mind is also changing and I am born, everybody is born, I am going to die, everybody is going to die but I am struggling to keep alive, I am struggling to be wise, to get absolute knowledge and I am struggling to obtain unbroken happiness, there is first of all no unbroken happiness in the world, secondly even if it be there for the sake of argument but when we are looking at the so-called unbroken happiness in the world, so long as we try to grasp it through the medium of body-mind, it will be limited only, limited in time, limited in space also, quantity also, it is impossible, then how can I get, first of all get out of the body and mind, when we get out of the body-mind, do you know what happens? Even the entire world will disappear, not only my body will disappear, when my Sthola Sarira disappears, the entire Jagrat Prapancha disappears, when my Sukshma Sarira disappears, our entire dream world disappears, how do we know? Because when we enter into the very natural state called sleeping state, we are only in indescribable bliss, Ananda, that is why it is called Ananda Mayakosha because the limitations of the body is too much, the limitations of the mind is also too much but both these limitations we overcome in the state called Sushupti, but there is also a limitation there, it is called Karana Sarira, and so after a few hours we are forced to wake up and again enter into that state of Jagrath and Swapna. Therefore, through the limited instrument, even if there is unlimited something outside, through limited instrument we can never get unlimited something, that is how the concept of Nithya can help us, but we want unlimited existence, unlimited knowledge, unlimited unbroken happiness called Sat, Chit and Ananda, is it possible? Yes, it is possible, not only possible, it is inevitable and the concept is I am not going to attain Mukti, why? Because I am already free, like a person who is dreaming that he is bound, he is actually free, nobody bound him but then his own thoughts bind him, he feels I am bound and what should he do to get out of that state of bondage? He simply has to wake up, as soon as he wakes up he says, oh I am in my own bed and I am completely free and so many things are there, marvellous things, so that is how this waking up from imagined bondage is the concept of Mukti by Advaita Vedanta. Now, this is what Gaudapada wants to say that you are not in bondage, the world also is not in bondage, what is bondage? Birth, I am born, you are born, everything in the world is born, he wants to prove that's a wrong idea and he is giving some logical reasons for that and this is what we have been seeing since the last class. Now, in my last class we were discussing about 26th Karika or Shloka of the third chapter called Advaita Prakarana. As I mentioned many times Gaudapada's language, I wish he sat down at the feet of Shankaracharya and learnt Sanskrit all over so that the teachings are absolutely marvellous, but the language is atrocious language, but that is what he is, unfortunately Shankaracharya came later and Gaudapada was his grand guru, guru's guru, paramaguru, so his language we have to accept because it is what we call sugarcane juice. Rasogulla juice is also very enjoyable, sweet, sugarcane juice also is very enjoyable juice. So, what is the problem? Problem is Rasogulla is extremely easy to squeeze the Rasam, all that you need to do is take the trouble of opening your mouth, but the sugarcane juice, Chakshu Rasam, my God, you have to bring it, cut it into pieces and you know and then put it and then you are Vedantin Kanavarchu and here you have to go on chewing, chewing, chewing and it may hurt also and then some Rasam will come, then you say, ah so marvellous it is. This is the difference between Shankara's language and Gaudapada's language. One is Amra Rasam, especially remember in Andhra Pradesh we have Rasalu. Rasalu, a type of mango is just cut at the edge like opening up the coca-cola bottle and tilt it into your mouth and gently squeeze, Rasam will be flowing. Shankaracharya's everything that he has written is such marvellous thing, but this Gaudapada's is is like getting the juice from the sugarcane. Anyway, great man. So, what is he talking here earlier? From earlier onwards he is telling this world really doesn't exist. Is it true? Absolutely true, but for us it is very difficult to understand. For that he gave earlier some hints. One of the hints is when we are dreaming and that example is going to come here very, very soon, any number of times it will come. When we are dreaming, if I come and tell you that this world is unreal, not only it is unreal, actually it is your own creation, especially very hard to believe. So, you are dreaming that somebody is coming and beating you black and blue. At that time I come and tell you, I start Raha. What a beautiful incident is happening here and you are likely to shoot me with whatever implement you have at hand. Why? I am suffering I am suffering so much. Somebody is beating me black and blue. Instead of helping me, you are enjoying this scene. What type of man you are? So, that would be the same teaching Gaudapada wants to tell us. Even when you are suffering in this so-called waking state, that suffering is also of the same value as the dream. It is a beautiful example, we have to digest it. When we are dreaming, it is not a dream. So also, when we are experiencing this waking state, it is no different from the dream. What is the comparison between these two? The dream comes to an end and this dream called waking state also will come to an end. When we go into the dream state, the waking state comes to an end. When we wake up, the dream state comes to an end. But when we enter into the dream state, the waking state also comes to an end. We don't take notice of it. We only take notice of the end of the dream state. Everything seems to be real in the dream. Everything absolutely seems to be real in the waking state. But when we enter into the other state, every other state becomes unreal. So, we are swinging between reality, so-called reality and unreality. But there is a witness who is swinging, who is observing the change and he is neither a wakened person, nor a dreaming person, nor a sleeping person. He is called Duryaha in the fourth state. This is the point. So, at this state of our consciousness, the meaning we have to take for Mithya or Maya is everything is changing. So, today I may be very happy. I may have been very happy for a long time but one millisecond change will come and then the more happy we were, the more unhappy we will become equally. These are some of the points to keep in background before we go into this. Now, what is the God of Adas struggling to convey to us? That Brahman, the supreme reality, has never become the world. Then earlier we have seen, then why do the scriptures speak of creation? That is for the children who cannot understand that a dream is a dream. It is not reality. So, it is first as if they accept the truth and later on to deny it, that actually you are, when the scriptures, Upanishads tell us, you are not the Dehi, you are not the body, you are not the mind. The idea conveyed is exactly what Gauda Pada is trying to tell us. If you are not the body, entire Stola Prapancha also disappears. When you are not the mind, the entire Sukshma Prapancha will disappear and when we are told you are not even the Karana Deha, causal body, then the entire Karana Prapancha also will disappear. There will be no Prapancha at all. But what remains? The pure consciousness remains and that is everyday experience. So, Gauda Pada is not telling something strange, peculiar, but he is emphasizing very emphatically some things. That is why we consider him, that this particular theory he is trying to propagate is called Ajatiya Bhava, Ajati. Ajati means not caste, Jati means birth. What is it? The Jiva is never born, the world also is never born, but very hard to accept and very hard to implement. But we will be forced to do it today or tomorrow, whatever it is, there is no doubt about it. Now in this 26th Parika, what is he telling? That the scripture itself is telling and we know. What is it? Sa Esaha, that Atman, the Shruti passage there. It is not this Neti Neti. Where is this Neti Neti? The words come in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 4th chapter, 2nd section, 4th mantra says Sa Esaha, Saha means that, Esaha means Atma, Neti Neti, it is called Neti Neti, neither the Amurta Prapancha nor the Amurta Prapancha, neither what is experienced as manifest and experienced also. Now we don't really experience but we guess, unmanifest world. Neti Neti Atma Agrahyaha Nahi Grihyate Because what it is very difficult to deny the unreality of what we are experiencing and we can never experience what is unmanifest, but we have to believe there is unmanifest and this is what Yajnavalkya was teaching that there is only one word, Neti Neti. Everything is to be denied. Finally what in the summary? Body has to be denied, mind has to be denied, Karana Sharira is also to be denied, then to deny there must be somebody. I am not this to say that I must be there. I am not the Stola Prapancha, I must be there. I am not the Sokshma Prapancha, I must be there. Both these are called Amurta Prapancha and Nidra Prapancha, Karana Sharira that is called unmanifest and therefore there also I am not Karana Sharira. And then what remains? All the three forms disappear. What remains? I, the denier, the negator alone will remain. That is why it is said here so very difficult to understand. In the Upanishad, we have to understand this has been categorically declared as what this Atma is. Not the body, not the mind, not the Karana Sharira. Nihnuteyapaha. Nihnuteyapaha means negates. Everything is negated as not this, not this. Sarvam agrahya bhavena. So when everything is negated, can we understand that one? Very difficult. That is why it is called agrahya means extremely difficult to understand intellectually. There are many things which are real but not acceptable, not understandable by the mind. So that is what he says but we can become one. Why? Ununderstandable because the five sense organs will not work there. The mind also will not work there. Therefore it is not possible for us to grasp it. That is why ito vacho nivartante aprapya manasasaha where along with the mind, along with the speech, both of them return because how can you describe what is beyond both mind and body but that is what the scripture is telling. So we have to accept it. Sarvam agrahya bhavena. Hetuna ajam rakasate. When everything is denied, what remains? The denier, the negator. Who is the negator? If I am not the body and mind, it is Atman alone. I am that Atman. Very difficult to understand it. So that is what we have discussed. I am not the body, I am not the mind but still what am I? We have to understand I am Atman, I am Brahman. Then in another two three karikas, Audhapada is trying to prove the same fact. There is no birth of either Jiva or the world. Same thing he is repeating it in different words and through Yukti, not only through Shruti, through Yukti. So 27th karika. Satohi mayaya janma yujyate, natu tatvatah. Tatvatah jayate sya, jatam tasya jayate. So what does it mean? Means that which is ever existed appears to pass into birth through illusion, through maya and not from the standpoint of reality. He who thinks that this passing into birth is real asserts as a matter of fact that what is born is born again. What is born is born again. As I said, this requires very sharp intellect to understand through logic but really it is very simple. What do these scriptures tell about Brahman? That he is Ajam, unborn. He is Ekam, he is only one and he is Anantam, he is infinite and he is Nityam. Ajo Nityah Sasvatayam. He is Ajah, unborn. He is Nityah, he is eternal. That means changeless. Brahman is changeless and if anybody says that this world has come from Brahman, why do we say? Because our own daily experience tells where from have I come? Ultimately we have to trace it from God only we have come. Instead of using the word God we are using the word here Sataha or Brahman. So we are firmly believing there is a creation because I am there, my body is there, my mind is there and I am studying the Pandukya world only because of the body-mind. How can I deny it? If anybody thinks logically what do the scriptures tell? Brahman is Ajah, Nityah, Ekah and he is Anantah. There is nobody else, he is infinite etc. etc. Now a logic a little bit. Let me first give an example. Supposing there is milk and when the milk becomes curds, is it changed or not? What is our experience? It is changed. So the milk doesn't remain as milk. It is available only as curds and curds also can you do? Very interesting point. Then it can become butter. So curds is disappeared. What it becomes? What does it become? Buttermilk. Buttermilk is a very strange word I explained many times. There is neither butter nor milk. That peculiar something which is left over after churning the butter and removing the butter is called buttermilk. Is it milk? No. Is it butter? No, it has been taken away. So what is the point? Milk doesn't remain as milk. So what does it, what is the logic is telling? Logic is the scriptures tell Brahman is changeless. Brahman is changeless like milk. But if the milk becomes curds, that is if you say that this Brahman has given birth to this creation, it is like milk becoming curds. That means Brahman will not remain ajaha, Brahman will not remain ekaha, Brahman will not remain nityaha, Brahman will not remain anantaha. He becomes finite and he becomes limited. All the opposite qualities will come. Do you accept that? No, it cannot be accepted. I hope you understand. So then how do you explain? Because we are experiencing the world and you are telling, you dare to come and tell me that Brahman has never becomes creation. But I am in the creation. I see the whole world world and it can be only attributed to God. How do you explain for that? They have a cunningly another type of argument. It is called vivartavada. Don't you see a snake? Yes. So when you see a snake, do you doubt it is a snake? No. And do you see the rope? No. Then when light is brought up, do you see the snake? No. What do you see? Rope. Now I ask you, is the rope worthless or not? Because whatever you were thinking earlier, this rope must have become a snake. Try to understand the analogy. That's all. So the rope has become a snake. Now what happened? The snake has again gone back into the condition of the rope. Do any one of us accept this? It's ridiculous. There was never any snake. I am only thinking there is a snake. Exactly. I'm thinking there is samsara. It is my thought. It is my delusional thought. It is my illogical thought. It is my ignorant thought. Really speaking, there is no samsara. How do we know? Because, very simple, when you go to sleep, do you experience the samsara? Do you experience sukha-dukha? Do you even know that you are a man or a woman? Do you know that you are a prisoner or you are a prison inspector? All those distinctions between myself and everything else will disappear. And then that is why that is a state of advaya, temporary advaita sthiti. That's why we are so happy. But when we wake up, we understand that that is the state experienced by the mindless state. Mind itself has merged into another state. This is also another example given. Sleep, there is no samsara. And nirvikalpa samadhi also, there is no samsara. Then, what is the difference between these two? The difference is enormous. What is the first difference? That you cannot go into sleep. When the sleep comes, it will come. It has its own sweet will. All that you can do is surrender yourself to it. Similarly, if you surrender to God, then only nirvikalpa samadhi will come, not otherwise. That is the first limitation. And then is it permanent or temporary? Sleep, I'm talking about sleep. It is temporary. So that is another thing. But the most important difference is, are you conscious that you are sleeping? Not really. But when you enter into nirvikalpa samadhi, I am Brahman, is a continuous state. It is permanent state and we are fully conscious. There is no unconsciousness there. After deep sleep, we wake up. Oh, it was so marvellous. I did not know how time passed. But when you enter into nirvikalpa samadhi, you don't wake up into another state. Oh, that was marvellous. And I experienced it. Marvellous joy. Never before in my life I experienced it. It is a permanent state. So sleep is temporary, nirvikalpa samadhi is permanent. In sleep, there is already a seed for waking up. In nirvikalpa samadhi, there is no seed for samsara. In sleep, we are not conscious. In nirvikalpa samadhi, we are fully conscious. So, this is why sleep is given as an example. Don't take it as a permanent state. But it gives a hint what samadhi really could be. With this background, let's come back to this 27th verse. Sataha means the ever-existent Brahman. Mayaya janma, that has taken birth as Jivatma, as this world, as I, as you and anybody else. Yujyate mayaya. Only because of maya, it appears as if the rope has become the snake. Natu tattvataha. Tattvataha means in reality Brahman can never become anything. It remains only Brahman. Ajam nirvikalpam. Tattvataha. And then he gives a beautiful analogy. Tattvataha jayate yasya. Jatam tasya hi jayate. Supposing, for argument's sake, Brahman has really become samsara. How does Brahman can become samsara in reality? Like milk really changing into curds. That means Brahman cannot remain as Brahman. If Brahman doesn't remain in Brahman, have you ever seen at any time milk has become curds and after one hour I'm tired of being curds. I will go back into the milk state. Have you ever seen permanent change? So this is the first argument. What is the second argument? Brahman, anything that is changing cannot be the final cause. Everything that is changing has come out of something else. So if we attribute this argument to Brahman and if Brahman really has become samsara, that means it is changing. So Brahman is changing. A changing Brahman cannot be the final cause. It must be having some other cause. And if you go on saying like that, that next cause which gave birth to Brahman must also be changing because it has given birth to Brahman. And the second Brahman also because it gave birth, it is a changing Brahman. So we enter into what is called infinite regress. That is not desirable. So Brahman never becomes the creation. That means if Brahman is not the cause, if there is no cause there is also no effect. If Brahman is not the cause, samsara also will disappear. There will be no samsara. But what is our experience? We see the samsara. So for that what is the explanation? Temporary explanation is like our mistaking a rope for a snake. When the light is brought out, then we clearly recognize that there was no snake. It was only because of my fear I imagined. So imagination is not reality and we find this greatest mistake that we commit in life is called Shobhana Adhyasa. That certain things if I obtain, whole life I will be happy. Actually I will not be happy. Ramakrishna gives a beautiful example. An old man married a young girl and ever since his marriage he kept on becoming a watchman. 24 hours watching his wife whether she is sporting with somebody young man or the other. So to put it simply what it means Brahman never has given birth. This samsara is only just a mistake in our mind. Mind is the real problem. How do we know? Because when the mind merges in sleeping state there was no samsara. There was no dukkha. A prisoner is not a prisoner. A man to be hanged is not going to be hanged and we know this very clearly. So this is all I can explain in the simplest way possible. That is what Gaudapada wants to say. That which is ever existent, that means never changing, appears to pass into birth, appears to change, that is becoming the samsara only through illusion because of maya and where is that maya? In our mind. That means we are interpreting Brahman as if it is making creation, not really. From the Brahman's point of view there is no creation. From our point of view there is creation. It is all a trick of the mind and not from the standpoint of reality. He who thinks that this passing into birth is real, really is committing a logical fallacy. What is that fallacy? That which if at all if it is born, it is a changing factor and a changing factor can never be the cause of anything because it itself is the cause of, itself is the effect of something else. Therefore, we enter into infinite regress. What is the scripture saying? Ajah and Baran. Nityah, eternal. Eternal means what? Never changing. Anantah, that means he is one. Anantah, infinite. It is not a number of parts put together. It is infinite, means one only. So, what is the samsara? It is ever-changing. It is not one and Brahman is Brahmananda Swaroopa. What is this world? Sukha Dukha Swaroopa. Sometimes happy, sometimes unhappy because it is changing, ever-changing. I hope I was able to convey this logical contradiction will come if we accept that Brahman has really become the samsara. But remember, that is the highest truth. But we, for us, samsara is real. What should we do? You will not understand also real. Until we become Brahman, it is not possible to understand this statement. Then what is our duty? Our duty is to worship the same Brahman as Saguna Brahma, as the creator. Live a good life according to the directions of the scriptures and then slowly mind becomes purer. That means desires become less. That means the happiness is produced from within. We don't depend upon anything external for our happiness. We depend upon God which is our own real self within. So, the less we have desires, the less it becomes distracted, the more concentrated it becomes and there only we intuit that divine. This is called progressing in spiritual life. This is called approaching God nearer and nearer and the nearer we approach God, the more we become Sat, Chit and Ananda Swaroopa and that is how we have to progress in life. Then what happens? Finally, we cannot, we are able to think only of God and that one thought of God, the Saguna Brahma is called, it goes by the name Brahmakara Vritti and once we attain Brahmakara Vritti, the effort of the mind comes to an end and then something takes over that Ishwara called Saguna Brahma and we go so near. Just as a piece of thin paper approaches, is taken to a fire, when it is sufficiently nearer the fire, it becomes so hot, very soon it bursts into flames. Like that, the Brahmakara Vritti is destroyed by Brahman. That Vritti called Akara is destroyed, what remains is Brahman. Brahmakara Vritti, that Akara Vritti is destroyed, what remains is Brahman and this same idea we discussed in this 27th is repeated with an example by Gaudapada. First of all the example, Vandhya Putra, beautiful words, a son of a barren woman, woman is there but she is barren and she has a son. We can use words but is it real? Is that really? So, na tatvena, either really, mayaya or even through the power of illusion. Vandhya Putra na jayate, it is impossible to imagine the birth of a barren woman but we can use it for the sake of play. This is the example, with this example what does Gaudapada wants to say? Asataha mayaya janma tatvataha naiva yujyate, whether Brahman becomes this samsara. Asataha tatvataha. Asataha means what? Unreally. Tatvataha means really. Just as Vandhya Putra, really or delusionally cannot be born. Creation also, really creation cannot be born for the reasons we discussed earlier and unreally also. That is what he is trying to tell us. This samsara is called unreal. The snake is unreal because we are experiencing it, we are forced to tell it is unreal. So, just as Vandhya Putra's existence, existence of the world is also either really or magically it is not possible. So, creation is not possible at all. Is this the correct statement? Yes, that is what, really speaking that is what is the truth but this truth can never be understood at this stage of our development. So, what should we do? I told you just now, you go on doing Upasana, you have to go on doing worship, Tirtha Yatra, scriptural study, attend the classes, become. There is here also a point I have to remind, so many people do it but their selfishness will never go away. So, the purpose of all these spiritual activities is to reduce our selfishness. So, we have to share whatever we have to the extent possible with others because there is no other. Everybody is a God only but without becoming unselfish there are billions of people who go on doing. Not only they don't become unselfish, they will become more selfish, more cruel like some religions. If you do not accept our religion, we are going to cut your throat, we are going to in the name and this country belongs to us. It is one country, one country policy and go on trying to occupy, to kill people and they do not understand how much suffering they have to undergo in future as a result of these evil activities. So, to reinforce what we discussed, there is no real creation but we are experiencing creation only because of Maya. Maya creation is not real creation therefore even when we are experiencing the snake, there is no real snake. If somebody pushes you towards that snake, you may die because of your fight but if you fall upon that snake, neither that snake is going to die nor you are going to die because there is no real snake. You are falling upon really only a rope. Even if you fall by mistake or somebody forcibly wants you to die, pushes you onto that snake, you are not going to die because the snake is unreal. An unreal snake cannot do really anything and to reinforce that one, in the 29th Karika, Gaudapada is giving us another example. We have discussed this point especially in the second chapter called Vaitatya Prakarna. What does it mean? Just as in a dream, the mind acts through Maya presenting the appearance of reality, so also in the waking state, the mind acts as though Maya presenting the appearance of reality. What does it mean? I hope it is not too difficult. When you go to dream state, whatever you are experiencing is unreal but you may not realize that it is unreal so long as you are dreaming but when you wake up you understand somebody praises you that is not unreal while experiencing dream. Somebody criticizes you that is also real so long as you are dreaming. You will not accept it but then what is the point? Dvaya Vasa means the whole dream world is created by your mind, by my mind, by anybody's mind, whoever is dreaming and Dvaya means duality. What is the duality? I and everything else. In this waking state also there are only two things, don't say millions of things, only two things, I and everything else. I fall into one category, everything else falls into second category, only two. So just as in this Vapana, in the dream, the mind because of its Samskaras creates this duality of the subject and objects. How many subjects? Only one subject. How many objects? Can be many number of objects. So Spandate that means created by whom? By Manaha. And how does it create? Maya. Here Maya means what? Its Samskaras. That is if you are happy that is one Samskara. In the dream if somebody is beating you up that is another Samskara but when you wake up you understand the reality of both what you gained, what you lost, everything is absolutely nothing because nothing really happened. With that example, if we understand that example apply it to the waking state. Tatha, exactly the same way. Jagrat Dvaya Avasam. In this waking state also there are only two things, I and everything else. And who creates this division? Manaha. Our mind only creates in the waking state also I am the subject, everything else is the object. And how does it create? Through Maya. What is the Maya? Maya is here Purva Janma Samskara. Purva Janma Karma Krita Samskara. How? Purva Janma Karma Phalaha. That is what is called Prarabdha. Who created this body? Me. Who created this mind? Me. If I am a good person who made me good? Me. If I am an evil person who created me? Me only. So this is called, earlier I discussed with some length what is called Drishti Srishti Vada and Srishti Drishti Vada. The essence of it is that I am the creator of the entire world and a raw material is God. But how I fashioned it is my own Samskara. So this is a beautiful point and what does Gaudapada wants to convey? Really there is no creation, it is a seeming creation. How do we know? Because whatever we create both in the waking state as well as in the dream state, as soon as we enter into the sleeping state both of them completely disappear and whatever disappears can never be real.

== Questions ==
I just want to know is it fair to understand that in reality this whole of the Samsara, Jiva, Jagat, Ishwara, everything is an incredibly beautiful dream of Brahman himself? Yes, at this moment don't say Brahman because Brahman never dreams. I don't know. Let us say me the Jiva through my Samskara just as I am creating the dream and that we understand easily upon waking up. But unfortunately we don't wake up from this waking state so we can never understand, equate it with the dream state. We can understand through logic when we enter suppose you are in UK, you dream you are in India. When do you realize that you are never in India? While waking up. Only upon waking up isn't it? Yeah. So who created that illusion that I am in India? Myself. Exactly. So important simple point is everything is changing. Many times we discuss waking is changing into dream. Dream is changing into sleep. Yeah. And sleep is again changing into waking. Correct. So the point is for this you don't need to be very spiritual. Correct. Everything is changing is everybody's experience isn't it? Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And you cannot, what is our problem? Our problem is we are expecting some things should not change. That is when I am happy it should continue isn't it? And never should I encounter unhappiness isn't it? Yeah. But if everything is changing will this be changing or will it remain according to your wish? According to the wish. Are changing factors or not? In reality not. So emphasize, hold on to that. I was born, I was a baby, I was grown up, I was married. Now I am in my declining stage or ascending stage. Declining but actually a delightful stage. Very good. So not really a decline, not in declining definitely not declining because this is the time when is one is really waking up. So how can it be declining? Okay, you be in that state only. There's just one little question. Who is it that is seeking? The self is seeking its own self? No, neither the self is seeking nor the mind is seeking. It is a combination of the self with the mind because the mind will not work without the self. And the self itself will not be able to express seeking or non-seeking without the mind. This combination of the mind, this concept of Jivatma itself we are confused. Jivatma means a combination of Chit and the mind. The Chidambhasa, isn't it? The nearer we are able to, isn't the seeking gross? So you understand now it is neither the self nor the mind but a combination of body and mind. But the more the mind is getting purified, the seeking grows even more, isn't it? Seeking grows but its direction, the object is self.

So Maharaj, in effect the root causes of all those issues and challenges is the mind itself. Correct. Absolutely correct. And the spiritual practices helps us purify that mind to get to that state where it becomes very clear about Brahman. Correct. Absolutely. Okay. So as we progress in spiritual life, what happens is what we are seeking in the outside world until now, what are we seeking? Happiness, isn't it? Yes, Maharaj. As we progress in spiritual life without depending upon any object in the world, our happiness is growing, isn't it? Yes, Maharaj. That means our desires are redundant, isn't it? Yes, Maharaj. That means the mind doesn't become agitated, correct? Yes. And so that is how slowly our desires become less, that is called Chitta Shuddhi, purification of the heart. Okay, Maharaj. So Maharaj, these teachings in that sense has very strong linearity with psychiatry or psychology. Yes, I told you about a particular psychological treatment, CBT. That is very, very useful. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, CBT, that is bring about in the cognition, that is cognitive means change in our thinking process. Okay. So the events, the world, it will not change, but how it impacts our mind, that can be changed and that training is no less than spiritual sadhana. Okay. In that way, this psychology is very much helpful. Our whole problem is what? Mind. That's why I told you when in the deep sleep, what happens to the mind? Mind doesn't function and therefore is there any problem? Nope. And so bondage as well as liberation. There is a beautiful verse, mind alone is the root cause of both bondage and then liberation and you apply it to any worldly situation. Any worldly situation, it is only the thought process, bring about a change in the thought process. Understand? Yes, Maharaj. In fact, I would go so far as to say that spiritual life has nothing to do with spirit. It is only bringing about a change in the thinking. Mind. Yes, when your mind becomes so pure that there would be only Brahman remaining, nothing else remains, isn't it? Yes, Maharaj. Imagine as a room in your house, thousands of things are there and brilliant light is illuminating all those things. They create either happiness or unhappiness and start throwing out one after the other the objects. Ultimately, no object is there excepting empty room and brilliant light. Our mind will become filled with that light. The more things we throw out, the more light is manifest, pure light is manifest. That is called spiritual progress.

At one point, Swamiji tells Thakur that [he declares] that avidya maya is also vidya maya and then Thakur responds that no, no, not at this stage but that will come at the final. Can you please explain that? I have been talking about this in Shwetashwatara Upanishad class very, very elaborately, isn't it? Yes, Maharaj. Avidya is coming from God, isn't it? Yeah. So, what comes out from God, will it ever be bad? No. That is why I took so much time to explain. These stupid people don't understand that. They invented this word maya and ruined the whole India, not only spiritually but politically also, lot of problems because of this misunderstanding. The point is avidya is a preparatory stage called karmakanda and vidya maya or jnanakanda is possible only when avidya prepares us to enter into that stage, isn't it? Yes, Maharaj. This is the relationship between avidya and vidya. They are not opposed, they are not enemies, but they are a lower step and a higher. But Maharaj, Swamiji was an advanced spiritual aspirant, and he was already on the path of the vidya maya only. So, why does Thakur tell Swamiji that it is too early to declare that avidya is also vidya? Because he had to go through the phase like any one of us; so that when we encounter Swamiji and ask his guidance, he can tell from his own experience that at one point of time I was also like this, and this is what my Guru told me, and this is what I am conveying to you. Was there any necessity for Swamiji to go through sadhana? He was a Rishi, one of the Saptarishis. Then whatever he has gone through is for what purpose? For our edification. In fact, Sri Ramakrishna had done so many years, more than 12 years of sadhana for his sake or for our sake? For our sake. We have to remember that. That's what Swami Saradananda explains beautifully - What is the difference between Thakur sadhana and our sadhana? He gave a beautiful analogy. Sri Ramakrishna himself tells later on this one. Our eyes are not only covered completely as though with150 screws, [I am adding that], 150 screws have been secured so that any amount of effort will not help. Whereas the Avatar Purusha, he is covering with his own hands his eyes. He knows I will pretend to be blind but anytime I want to see, I can see. That is why he is Janma Karma Chame Divyam Evam Yo Veti Tattvata. Very difficult to understand. People think I am also in trouble, I am also born and I am also going through all these things. It is true, but voluntarily it is done. He is not born as a result of Karmaphala. But that is according to scriptures. According to me, you are born only because of Karmaphala. You understand? If you create a mess in your kitchen, who would have to clean it up? I will have to clean it up. He created this mess called Simsa. Oh, like that. You understand now? Yes, Maharaj. This Paramahasya only for my disciples I will tell. Okay. Yes, Maharaj. Thank you.

Mandukya Karika Lecture 106 on 7-June-2023

2023-06-13T21:32:13Z

Bhamav: /* Summery v1 */

== Summary v1 ==
Gaudapada's third chapter of the Karikas, called Advaita Prakarana, emphasizes the concept of Advaita (nondualism). Gaudapada uses reasoning and quotations to establish that Advaita is the ultimate reality. The problems in our experience arise from the changing nature of things. Temporary happiness and unhappiness, as well as the inevitability of death, highlight the impermanence of the world. However, Gaudapada argues that our true nature is immortal, unchanging, and infinite. Immortality cannot become mortality, and vice versa. By understanding our true nature and realizing the unchanging reality, we can attain liberation. Gaudapada counters the idea that the immortal can become mortal and that the mortal can become immortal, asserting that such changes violate logic and reason. He also highlights the futility of repeatedly going through cycles of mortal and immortal states. Gaudapada's teachings lead to the understanding that our true nature is immortal and unchanging.

== Summary v2 ==
The third chapter of the Karikas is called Advaita Prakarana, and it focuses on the concept of Advaita (non-duality). Gaudapada emphasizes the importance of Advaita through reasoning and quotes from scriptures to establish its ultimate reality. The problems in our lives arise from the fact that everything is constantly changing. Happiness turns into unhappiness, and vice versa. However, this impermanence can also be seen as a boon, as contrasting experiences allow us to appreciate and be aware of happiness. The root cause of our problems is our attachment to the idea that happiness should be permanent and suffering should never end. However, scripture tells us that there is something beyond this changing world, something infinite and unchanging, which is the nature of our true self. Saints like Ramana Maharshi and Swami Ramdas have realized this nature and exemplify unchanging happiness. Gaudapada logically argues that what is immortal cannot become mortal, and what is changing cannot retain its changeless nature. The nature of the individual self (Jeevatma) is immortality, and realizing this requires detachment and understanding the nature of our true self. Gaudapada refutes the idea that the immortal can become mortal without changing its nature and that the mortal can become immortal without going through a change. He emphasizes that once we realize our true nature, we won't need to go through cycles of birth and death or attend philosophical classes forever.

== Full Transcript ==
we have been pursuing the third chapter of the Karikas, Gaudapadas Karikas, the main emphasis is on ''Advaitam.'' That is why this third chapter is called ''Advaita Prakarana''. ''Prakarana'' means chapter. So, he wants to advise ''Shantam, Shivam, Advaitam''. These are the words that have been taken from the seventh mantra of the Mandukya Upanishad. Throughout, for the last few classes, we have been seeing how, not only through quotations, but through ''Yukti'', through reason, Gaudapada wants to establish that even through reason it is possible to establish that ''Advaita'' alone is the ultimate goal. ''Advaita'' alone is real. Sri Ramakrishna supports this. And we also, through our experience, can definitely understand this. How? Suppose, we feel it is not really supposition, we really feel this whole universe is real. I am real, my body is real, my mind is real, and my experiencing all this world is absolutely real. How can Shruti, which also talks about creation of the world, and creation of the world consists of two factors. One is ''Jeeva'', another is ''Jagat.'' One is what is called ''Jeevatma'', another is called ''Prapancha,'' of this world. Both are created by God. Only thing is instead of saying like a potter creating a pot, like clay becoming a pot. That is the difference. So why cannot we accept this world as real? Now I am talking purely from our experiential point of view. Why can't we take it? Yes, we have the freedom to take it. What is the problem? The problem is all problems arise from our experience. Why? What is the root cause? The root cause is change. Everything is changing. That is why Sri Ramakrishna's third commandment is always cultivate discrimination. What is discrimination? God alone is permanent. Everything is temporary. So, temporariness is what is the real problem.

But in a philosophical way, temporariness can also become a great boon. For example, when we are happy, we do not wish that happiness to come to an end. But in this world, whatever there is, experience is there. Experience always indicates a division, finiteness, duality. The experiencer and the experienced, and both are changing. My mind is also changing, and the external world is also changing. So, if I am very happy, I wish never to break it. There is a problem with this kind of happiness. You know what happens? If we do not contrast happiness with unhappiness, we will not even have the idea of happiness. If we are continuously sleeping, we will not know we are sleeping. If it is continuously light, we will not know it is light. If we are continuously happy, we will not know we are happy. But not only we want to be happy, not only we want to experience happiness, but we want to be aware that we are happy. And that is not possible if continuously if we are happy. We will not know what unhappiness is neither we know what happiness is. But everything is changing. What is the problem? When we are happy, we are unhappy even thinking it is going to change, and it is sure going to change. And when we are unhappy, another ''bhranti'', another illusion comes. This suffering is never ever going to come to an end. Foolish fellow, look back. So, what were you? You were quite happy. But what were you before you were happy? You were unhappy. And what were you before you were unhappy? Happy. So, if you think that whole life, so many lives, we experienced unhappiness, it comes to an end? Why do you delude yourself? This particular unhappiness is going to be permanent.

Now another question related to this is extend this unhappiness, but it is not really all the time unhappiness. What is it? Death. What happens? Whatever I know, good or bad, happy or unhappy, it comes to an end. I cannot contact the world as I know, as I knew it after death. But before birth also, I did not know. I don't know where from I have come. I don't know where I am going to go.

''Kotha ote aashi, kotha bhishe jai, yoda ite jai.''

Part of the Bengali, beautiful Bengali song attributed to some ''devatas'' who were singing to awaken Siddhartha, who was supposed to become Gautama Buddha later on.

So, everything is changing and this nobody can deny. So, happiness changes into unhappiness, unhappiness changes into happiness. If we can accept it, then what is the definition of reality? That which never changes. What is our experience? Everything is changing. But even there is a benefit here that when I witness whatever is changing, everything good and evil, they are changing continuously. When unhappiness comes, it gives us tremendous strength. This also will not last forever if we are wise enough. But what happens? Due to ''Avidya'' or ''Maya'', happiness, we feel should last all the time and unhappiness should never come. That is not going to happen. Therefore, what do the scriptures say? Scriptures say learn the lesson and develop detachment. But the scripture also tells us there is something which is infinite, which is unborn, which is unchanging, and which will never change. And what is its nature? ''Paramananda Swaroopa''. ''Sat Chit Ananda''. It is beyond death, beyond ignorance and beyond all suffering. That is after all what we are seeking all the time. So, for this we have no choice but to believe in the scripture. And why should we believe in the scripture? Because if we are fortunate to come across some people like Ramana Maharshi or Swami Ramdas, great saints, then we can understand that yes, what is the root cause of these people's happiness? They claim they have realized God. Simple words, God realization. And how do we know? We don't know. Because if somebody says I have eaten a very nice, sweet. We don't know whether it is nice, we don't know whether it is sweet. But the aftereffects, that is what we come to know. Yes, this person is very happy, and he is fearless, and he is always cheerful in spite of terrible agony. Like say Sri Ramakrishna during his last days. But there must be a cause. If this is the effect, there must be a cause. So, this is the type of logic we have to employ.

But Gaudapada is telling us in a very logical manner, presenting that logic whatever is one's nature can never change. And whatever is changing is not one's nature. That means if my body is changing, it is its nature. If my mind is changing, it is its nature. So, I cannot change it and say, let my body be immortal and let my mind also be immortal. That's not going to happen. But if my real nature is immortality, then this seeming identity with body-mind is only seeming, is only for a short time. But my immortality can never become mortal. My infinity cannot become finite. My unchanging nature cannot become a changing nature. That is what we discussed in our 21st Karika.

I was only summarizing the few earlier ''shlokas'' and a few more that are going to come. And then Gaudapada gives us several supporting sentences from the ''Shrutis''. That means from the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, etc. So, in the 21st verse, which we have completed in our last class, what does he say? Remember, these are all compositions of Gaudapada.

21st Karika

''na bhavatyamṛtaṃ martyaṃ na martyamamṛtaṃ tathā''

''prakṛteranyathābhāvo na kathaṃcidbhaviṣyati''

What does he say? Immortal cannot become mortal. Nor can the mortal ever become immortal. For it is never possible for a thing to change its nature. So, we have to find out what is my nature. And if my nature is immortality, your nature is also immortality. Everybody's nature is also immortality. What does it mean? It means no person other than a human being ever goes and attends these Mandukya Karika classes. The question, who am I, doesn't arise. We do not know if it arises, they never tell us. No animal, no non-human being tell. But every human being, whenever he gets a blow, he gets to this nature. Yes, it is possible. What is my nature? Can I live forever? Can I know everything? Can I be having unbroken happiness.

And conclusively, Gaudapada tells, ''Amrutam martyam na bhavate.'' That which is immortal, if there is something called immortal, and that's what the scripture is talking about God. And how many immortalities can be there? Only one. So, me, you, they, all of us, that number doesn't count at all. So, it must be one only. Immortal must be one only. Immortal cannot become mortal. ''Prakrutehe'', the nature of anything. ''Na kathanchit pavishyati anyatha bhavaha'', means changing. That means changing into the opposite nature is never possible. So, the essential nature of ''Jeevatma'' is immortality. So, what should a ''Jeevatma'' do to become immortal? Not by doing anything. That is why, ''akrute na pritaha''. So, by action nothing can be changed. Then what can action do? Will it do nothing? Yes, it will do something. What is it? Like the rope has never become a snake, and the snake will never become a rope. So, when the light is brought, and that is called activity. Bringing light is called activity. If we bring, the sooner we bring, the better for us. What happens? The rope will be revealed as the rope, and the snake is understood as only my fear. Rope has never become the snake. Snake cannot become the rope also. It is only a beautiful illustration. So, ''Paramatma'' has never become ''Jeevatma''. ''Paramatma'' has never become this ''Jagat''. Then what is it? Then it must be like mistaking. For mistaking there must be somebody. Somebody means a mind. It is a mistake in the mind. It is a mistake in the notion. These are the important points.

''svabhāvenāmṛto yasya bhāvo gacchati martyatām''

''kṛtakenāmṛtastasya kathaṃ sthāsyati niścalaḥ''

Continuing, same idea, how can he, who believes that the naturally immortal entity, that is ''Paramatma'', becomes mortal as ''Jiva'' and ''Jagat'', maintain that the immortal, after passing through change, retains its changeless nature? Two points are very important here, and very easy to understand. What is it? ''Yasya svabhanena amruto''. By its very nature, that which is immortal. This is about ''Brahman, Paramatma'', etc. ''Martyatam bhavaha gacchati''. How can it become mortal? Earlier we saw nature cannot be changed. So, it is not possible for the immortal to become mortal. And then supposing, yes, yes, it is possible. And who says? There are certain schools of philosophy, especially ''Dvaitha'' philosophy, especially ''Visishtadvaita'' says God has got a very special power whereby he can become the world and ''Jeeva.'' But at the same time, he can remain unchanged. He can change and he also remains. He becomes changed, he also becomes unchanged, remains at the same time. And this is against the all-understandable logic. That is very true also. This is the first point. The changeless cannot become changeful. Because if the changeless becomes changeful then it has violated the rule of logic, reason. But at the same time, supposing it changes, if it changes, then the immortal will not remain immortal. It becomes mortal because it has changed. You cannot counter. It remains the same and it also changes. That is not acceptable. Because ''Visishtadvaitins'', their philosophy is called ''Parinamavada. Parinamavada'' means ''Srishti'' has really taken place. How? Like milk has become curds.

Gaudapada counters, when milk becomes curds has anybody ever seen milk to remain as milk and at the same time become curds? Never. Not only that and once it becomes curds has anybody seen how to change the curds into milk? That is not going to be possible. So, ''Pritakena Amrutaha Tasya Katham Sthasyate Nischalaha.'' Supposing by some activity ''Amrutaha,'' immortality, becomes mortal. Supposing. Then, ''Katham Sthasyate Nischalaha'', how can it retain its immortality and also change into mortality? It is not possible. So, that is the first point.

What is the second point? Very interesting also. I will quote from Sri Ramakrishna's Gospel also. So, what is it? Suppose ''Brahman'' has become ''Jeevatma'' and after going through 84 lakhs of ''janmas'' he becomes awakened. Not only awakened he approaches great people. He determines through faith that the scripture tells, I am ''Brahman'', I want to become ''Brahman''. What am I now? I am not ''Brahman''. What do you want to become? I want to attain ''Brahman'', go to ''Brahman'', become ''Brahman''. How? Through ''sadhana.'' So, this is the second point. Supposing, by some hook or crook, a ''Jeevatma'' attains to ''Paramatma'' and knows I am ''Paramatma''. So, what is the problem? What was the first problem? The immortal has become mortal. What is the second problem? The mortal has become immortal. If once you admit, the immortal once became mortal, even after retaining ''moksha'', if you think eternally you will be changeless, you are a very stupid person. Because whatever changed once can change any number of times. Then, what is going to happen? Well, you become again mortal and you again go on doing ''sadhana'', attend this Mandukya Karika classes, because that is what happens to me also. And can you just imagine eternally you have to attend Mandukya Karika classes. What happens? You will go to ''Brahma Loka'', you cannot escape, because Swami Dayatmananda will come there also and take classes.

So, what does Gaudapada wants to say in this 22nd Karika? That the mortal can never become mortal without changing its nature. And it is not possible to change the nature. Nature means that which is not possible. So, some examples we have seen. What is the nature of fire? Heat. If anybody imagines fire loses its heating capacity, ''thanda ho gaya'', then we have to say he is a very stupid person, unintelligent person. So, it is never going to happen. Does a sweet ever lose its sweetness? No. Does a bitter thing ever lose its bitterness? No. It is not possible. You can boil it, you can do anything. In Telugu we have a beautiful saying, you bring the skin of a black rat and go on washing it again and again and again. What happens? Your brain gets washed, and you become awakened. It is not possible to change the black colour into white colour.

It is not possible. That means the nature cannot be changed. In English also it is there, you can beat a donkey any number of times. It is not going to change into a horse. It is not going to become a horse. So, this is the idea. What are the two ideas we have seen in this 22nd verse? Whatever is one's nature cannot change. What is the nature of ''Brahman''? It is immortality. This immortality can never be changed. But if anybody for argument's sake says, yes, it can be changed and there are some schools of philosophy who believe that. If it can be changed, then what happens? That immortal becomes mortal. That is it. Immortal has lost its nature. It changed its nature. Now that which is immortal, its nature has become mortal. So, what is then possible? Once you can say that, the mortal also can lose its mortality and can become immortal. What is the problem? I pointed out the problem. Because you think I am coming from ''Brahman,'' produced. So, I am a small person. I have really become small. But I can become ''Brahman'' through ''sadhana''. And after 84 lakh ''Janam'' you become ''Brahman'' by obtaining ''Brahman'' knowledge. What were you in the first place? Immortal. What have you become? Mortal. Now what have you become? Through ''sadhana'' you have become immortal. So, what happened? Immortal has changed into mortality. Mortality has changed into immortality. What is the logic next? The immortal again becomes mortal any number of times. This is called reasoning.

So Shankara maintains the disputant, who maintains that the naturally immortal entity becomes mortal. That means it really passes into birth. Makes the futile proposition that that entity before creation is by its very nature immortal. But how can he say that once it changes its nature that it still retains its immortality? What I told you, explained to you earlier. So, this is a very important verse. What is the verse? That in this world because everything is changing, good person can become bad, evil person can become a saint. In fact, there is a saying every saint was a sinner before and every sinner now is going to be a saint in future. What are we talking about? We are not talking about ''Atman''. We are talking about the mind, change in the mind. Mind is changeable. So, a saint also is changeable. A sinner also is a changeable person. So, body can change, mind can change because it is its nature to be changed. So, anything changeable, you can make it beautiful, you can make it ugly, you can make it good, you can make it evil, you can make it a saint, you can make it a sinner, it doesn't really matter. But reason tells us the real essential nature cannot undergo change. So mortal ''jeevas'' cannot become immortal. The infinite cannot become finite, nor the finite can become the infinite. If finite becomes infinite at a particular time, it can become finite at a later time also. So, another important point here is supposing something becomes something else, it takes time. That means ''Brahman'', the immortal, becomes mortal, ''jeevatma, jagat''. Time is necessary because what was before, it changed into something else. To change that into something else, it may take a flash, a billionth of a second or it may take a billion years, doesn't matter. That means ''Brahman'' becomes what is called subject to change. And what brings about that change? Time. That means time existed before ''Brahman'' and ''Brahman'' came later on. So, what made ''Brahman'' immortal? Time. What makes the immortal ''Brahman'' into ''jeeva'' and ''jagat''? Time. And again, what makes ''jeeva'' and ''jagat'' into ''Brahman''? Time. What makes again that ''Brahman'' into ''jeeva'' and ''jagat''? Time. Now the question can come, I hope you will understand, is time changeable or unchangeable? Time is always changeable. If time is unchangeable, can you still call it time? No. What should you call it? Timelessness. I hope I am not confusing too much. What is the essence? ''Brahman'' will always remain immortal. Then what about the ''jeeva'' and ''jagat''? This is ''Advaitic'' point of view. That is seeming changes. Seeming. Rope seemingly has become snake. And again, snake seemingly has become rope. That is possible. But we know the rope has never become the snake and there is no need for the snake to become a rope. Because there is already rope. It has never changed. So that is the illustration. We have to think about it.

Now in the gospel, there was a person called Dr Bhaduri and he did not believe in ''Purva Janma'' and so many other things. So, the devotees made some fun about him. Once M was narrating this incident and this incident happened in the presence of Dr Bhaduri. There was some conversation between some devotees and Dr Bhaduri in the presence of Sri Ramakrishna. Because Dr Bhaduri did not believe in some things then this conversation has come. This was reported by M to Dr Mahindralal Sarkar. So, this is the conversation. The conversation turned to Dr Bhaduri who had also been visiting the Master now and then. M smiling recollecting what happened, Bhaduri said about you that you must begin all over again from the stone and brick bed. Dr Sarkar of course he did not understand. How is that? M, because you don't believe in the Mahatmas, astral bodies and so forth. Perhaps Bhaduri is a Theosophist because they believe in Mahatmas etc. Further you don't believe in the incarnation of God. That's why it is said that when you died the time you would certainly not be reborn as a human being. So then that would be far off. You won't be born even as an animal or bird or even as a tree or a plant. You would have to begin all over again from stone and brick bed. Then after many, many births you might get a human body. Then you might study medicine. Then you might turn to homeopathy. Then you might come into contact with Sri Ramakrishna. Then you won't again believe in the incarnation of Sri Ramakrishna. And then when you die again you start from all over. How many times? Infinite number of times. That will not change. So, this was the funny incident that happened because Bhaduri remarked about Dr Sarkar. So, what was Dr Sarkar's reaction? Oh, my goodness! Because he thought he was a very rational person. Sri Ramakrishna interacted with Dr Mahendralal Sarkar so nicely. Sometimes Mahendralal Sarkar used very harsh words also towards Sri Ramakrishna. And he used to sit aside. He was attracted, very argumentative. He compared himself with Sri Ramakrishna sometimes. This is also like ''hajra'', some ''leela'' has taken place.

Anyway, coming back, what is the 22nd verse telling? The ''Brahman'' has never become ''Abrahman''. Then what about all this? Seemingly yes. Really and that is called ''Vivartavada''. We will continue Karika number 23.

Then a small background I will give you. Now somebody is listening to this Gaudapada's argument. And then he says, Sir, I cannot accept your words. Why? What are you talking? Everything is ''Brahman''. ''Brahman'' is immortal from the Upanishads. And I also have studied Upanishads. And I also can tell the same Upanishads. Practically every Upanishad. Perhaps excepting Kena Upanishad, it doesn't mention. But every Upanishad is talking about creation. For example, In the Taittiriya Upanishad,

''Atmanah Aakashah Aakashah Vayoh Vayor Agnihi Agni Aapah Aapah Prithivi''

''Prithiv Aushadayah Aushadibhyuvannam Annatrasamayah Purushah''

From ''Atman'' is creating or manifesting as ''Aakashah''. So, do you mean to say the creation of the ''Panchabhutas'' which are the constituent materials of both the living as well as the non-living. When the Upanishads are crystal clearly telling about it, do you want to deny? You mean to say these statements are not ''Vedic'' statements? And do you believe that every statement in the ''Veda'' is absolutely true? This is the challenge especially given by ''Mimamsakas''. Because they believe that all the ''Karmakanda'' rituals, you can go to ''Brahma Loka'', live there for a long time. And their concept of ''Mukti'' is very interesting, that you go and be very happy for a long time. That is according to them the highest concept about ''Mukti''. Very interesting for us to study their concept of ''Mukti''. So, what do they do? So, for a long time uninterrupted unbroken happiness should be got. How to get it? So, the ''Vedas'' prescribe certain rituals. ''Swarga Kama Yajeta'' for example. Those who want to go to ''Swarga'', you would perform certain rituals. ''Agnihotram Yuhyat''. So, they are all true because ''Mimamsakas'' are ''Astikas''. They believe in the ''Vedas''. What about ''Advaitins''? 100% they believe. And do you mean to say some sentences in the ''Vedas'' are true, some are false, or the entire ''Veda'' is a ''Pramana''? That is the argument that is given here.

But Gaudapada is countering it in this 23rd Karika. What is he telling?

''bhūtato'bhūtato vāpi sṛjyamāne samā śrutiḥ''

''niścitaṃ yuktiyuktaṃ ca yattadbhavati netarat''

The passing into birth may be real or illusory. Both these views are equally mentioned in the ''Shruti''. That which is supported by ''Shruti'' and corroborated by reason is alone true and not the other. What is the meaning? ''Bhutathaha'' means really. ''Abhutathaha'' means maybe it is not real. That means it is unreal. What is it? ''Srijyamani'', this world is created. ''Jeevatma'' is created. ''Jeevan Jagat'', they are created. From ''Brahman'' they have come. So, is that creation? Whether the ''Vedas'', Upanishads talk about them, whether the creation is real or unreal, both statements ''Shrutihisama''. We get both the statements in the ''Shruti''. We have to accept it. Then what is the conclusion? That means ''Brahman'' is immortal, is also real. ''Jeevatma's'' creation is also real. This world is created is also real because it is the ''Veda'' who is telling. Don't question me. Don't argue with me. For them, for those ''Mimamsakas,'' Gaudapada is answering. But even though it is there,

''Nischitam Yukti Yuktancha Yath Tadbhavati Na Itharadah''.

So, simply don't quote from the ''Vedas'' and Upanishads. What should you do? First of all, ''Yukti Yukta'', that which is acceptable only to everybody's true reason. Not because you believe. What do we do? We first believe in something and take the support of reason to strengthen our beliefs. That is wrong. First you reason out and if it is acceptable then only you believe in it. Then you mould your life according to that belief. This is the correct thing to do. This is ''Yath Tadbhavati Na Itharadah''. That means that which is irrational, that which is superstition should not be believed. This is what Gaudapada is trying to tell. What is he trying to tell? That you are right. When you look in the scriptures, they are talking about ''Brahman'' who is eternal, infinite, unchanging, unborn, deathless, all these things. But at the same time, they are talking also about creation, which is always changing, ever changing. ''Brahman'' is never changing, which is finite, which is having birth, which is having death. That is also there. But how can two contradictory statements be made by the same ''Shruti''? What is the law? The law is if something has come out of clay, it must contain 100% the nature of clay. If something has come out of gold, it must be 100% gold. Keep this in mind. So, if the ''Jeeva'' and ''Jagat'' has come from the ''Brahman'' whose nature is immortal, unchanging, eternal, unborn, etc. And we are talking about what is born. So, it is impossible because suddenly a pot cannot claim I am a golden pot. If it is made from gold, it cannot claim I am an earthen pot. If it is made out of clay, it cannot claim I am a golden pot. This is what we all understand. So, how can that which is the effect of the cause of ''Brahman'', who is unborn, etc. as I mentioned, how can it be? What do we say? It is born, a baby is born, and it is changing every second. It is subject to death, subject to ''Sukha, Dukha''. The person may become good or evil, happy and unhappy, suffering from ''Cheeta'' and ''Ushna'' and profit and loss, etc. So, how are you going to explain these things? That is why earlier Karikas are telling nature cannot change. So, if a clay pot is born out of clay, it cannot change its nature of clayishness, which is clay. 100% it is nothing but clay. Similarly, golden ornament. So, either you say that this is born, or it looks as though it is born, but really it is not born. These are the philosophical arguments, and this particular argument is called ''Vivartavada'', not ''Parinamavada''. ''Parinama'' means real change. ''Vivarta'' means seeming change.

So, how do we understand? Then Gaudapada counters it and says, you know what, you don't simply pick up some statements from the Upanishads and then go on arguing. That is what the ''Veda'' says. The same ''Veda'' which tells everything is born, the same ''Veda'' tells later on very clearly, not in an ambiguous manner says there is no ''Jeevatma''. Every ''Jeeva'' is nothing but ''Brahman''. But because of ''Maya'' the person thinks. Because of the mind, because of thinking through the mind, which is called ''Maya''. Mind is ''Maya''. ''Maya'' means time-space-causation. Because he is thinking as if I am born, as if is okay. But I am born is wrong. So, the whole universe, nobody is born, no ''Jeeva'' is born, no ''Jagat'' is born, seemingly born. Yes, we accept it because we are experiencing it. We cannot deny our experience. This is what is telling that you study the ''Vedas''. For children, everything is born and for grown-ups, nothing is born.

And there is a beautiful story. I will share that story with you. There was a Prince who once drank some dirty water, and it was crawling with full of worms. And anyway, he drank some water because he was very thirsty. And since then he developed a feeling that a snake, a ''bachcha'', he had swallowed and it is growing up and day by day it is growing up. Several months passed. He was not able to eat and then the king tried many people and finally a man had come. Everybody was telling, no, no, no, no, there is no snake, it is all your brain problem. The more you say to a madcap you are mad, he is likely to say I am absolutely okay. Because for a madman, he is not a madman. One man had come because of a huge reward. And what did he do? He said, oh my God, the snake has become so big in your stomach. But fortunately, my great-grandfather has a remedy. This kind of cases could be seen earlier also because madness is born along with ''Brahman'' himself. So, it is a very ancient disease. So, the king was very happy. What to do? It is very stubborn, it has to be brought up. How? You drink this bitter medicine, very bitter, full stomach and then after few hours such a purging will come, and the snake cannot withstand. It has to come out. There is no other way. So, the Prince agreed instantaneously. Why? He is the first man who said the snake is real. That means this person is sane. Everybody was insane. So, he drank it happily and the ''Vaidya'' assured him that by tomorrow morning he will be alright. So, there was a toilet which was in darkness. And he said, you have to go and purge in darkness only because the snake will not come out if there is light. So, the Prince agreed. So, he went there. He knew that it is a clean room. So, he went fearlessly and such a purging he had that for several minutes, the purging started unstoppably and then his stomach became very light. He came out. Immediately, the ''Vaidya'' rushed into that lavatory with a light and brought a big grown-up snake. He said, I told you it is dead because of the medicine I have given and all that. And of course, he got great reward not for his fake medicine but for his intelligence. He required it. So, what happened? This fellow cleverly had planted unbeknown to that Prince a dead snake and the Prince could not understand. Of course, when you are in agony, you are not going to see snakes there. You are only seeing for an opportunity. So as soon as this was shown, and it is quite vague. I told you all these other scoundrels never believed all those things. And this man had become very rich. We are all like that. We are all Princes. What is it? ''Sunvant Vishwe Amrutasya Putra''. And we are being told again and again that you have no disease. You are not a ''Jeeva,'' and we say the whole world is mad. Shankaracharya is the maddest of all the people. When I am a ''Jeeva'', how dare he say? The dualists have created hell for all ''Advaitins'' and in that they created a very special type of hell for Shankaracharya because he is the root cause. He is called ''Mayavadi.''

So, what are we talking about? This person he thinks he has become ''Jeeva''. You think like that. Now for all those people ''Srishti'' is real because he will not take the medicine otherwise. So go and study. Go on doing rituals. ''Chitta Shuddhi'' takes place. Better understanding comes and then he will be in a position where he develops discrimination becomes an ''Adhikari'', ''Sadhana Chatushtaya Sampannaha''. Then his ''Guru'' will come and give him a true meaning. And then the person has to meditate. Is it true? How can I understand? How can I change my life? And he will become in the end, become means he understands I am, I was ''Brahman,'' I am ''Brahman'', I will be ''Brahman''. Then what was born? A wrong notion. What was removed? A wrong notion. That is all that happens. This is the beautiful thing earlier.

So Gaudapada says the origination of the world should not be accepted. The origination of the ''Jeeva'' should not be accepted. The world has not originated from ''Brahman''. The ''Jeeva'' has not originated from ''Mana''. Then the question comes is Gaudapada a ''Prachana Boudha''? Because Buddhists don't accept ''Vedas''. Is Gaudapada like that? No. There is a dispute. But no. Gaudapada is the greatest believer in the ''Vedas'' because all the time he is doing nothing but quoting from the ''Vedas''. So Gaudapada answers not by saying that the ''Veda'' is wrong but by saying that that the ''Veda,'' Upanishad should be read in its entirety. Don't simply read a few statements at the beginning. You go to the end. And what is the end? That is called Upanishad. What does the Upanishad say? ''Mahavakya''. What is the ''Mahavakya''? ''Aham Brahmasmi''. So, taking only a few selective statements meant for those who are beginners those who are growing up can always create problems. That is why Sri Ramakrishna says ''Advaita'' is the last word. Everybody is none other than ''Brahman''. And ''Advaita'' means knowing that I am ''Brahman''. This is ''Advaita''. We have to go through those steps. We have to go through ''Brahmachari Ashrama,'' ''Grihasta Ashrama,'' ''Vanaprastha Ashrama'', finally ''Sannyasa Ashrama''. It is a very natural growth. So, ''Vedas'' do talk about both statements, creation and non-creation. The creation is meant for immature minds. Non-creation is meant for those who are ready for the final teaching.

Mandukya Karika Lecture 106 on 7-June-2023

2023-06-13T21:30:57Z

Bhamav: /* Full Transcript */

== Summery v1 ==
Gaudapada's third chapter of the Karikas, called Advaita Prakarana, emphasizes the concept of Advaita (nondualism). Gaudapada uses reasoning and quotations to establish that Advaita is the ultimate reality. The problems in our experience arise from the changing nature of things. Temporary happiness and unhappiness, as well as the inevitability of death, highlight the impermanence of the world. However, Gaudapada argues that our true nature is immortal, unchanging, and infinite. Immortality cannot become mortality, and vice versa. By understanding our true nature and realizing the unchanging reality, we can attain liberation. Gaudapada counters the idea that the immortal can become mortal and that the mortal can become immortal, asserting that such changes violate logic and reason. He also highlights the futility of repeatedly going through cycles of mortal and immortal states. Gaudapada's teachings lead to the understanding that our true nature is immortal and unchanging.

== Summery v2 ==
The third chapter of the Karikas is called Advaita Prakarana, and it focuses on the concept of Advaita (non-duality). Gaudapada emphasizes the importance of Advaita through reasoning and quotes from scriptures to establish its ultimate reality. The problems in our lives arise from the fact that everything is constantly changing. Happiness turns into unhappiness, and vice versa. However, this impermanence can also be seen as a boon, as contrasting experiences allow us to appreciate and be aware of happiness. The root cause of our problems is our attachment to the idea that happiness should be permanent and suffering should never end. However, scripture tells us that there is something beyond this changing world, something infinite and unchanging, which is the nature of our true self. Saints like Ramana Maharshi and Swami Ramdas have realized this nature and exemplify unchanging happiness. Gaudapada logically argues that what is immortal cannot become mortal, and what is changing cannot retain its changeless nature. The nature of the individual self (Jeevatma) is immortality, and realizing this requires detachment and understanding the nature of our true self. Gaudapada refutes the idea that the immortal can become mortal without changing its nature and that the mortal can become immortal without going through a change. He emphasizes that once we realize our true nature, we won't need to go through cycles of birth and death or attend philosophical classes forever.

== Full Transcript ==
we have been pursuing the third chapter of the Karikas, Gaudapadas Karikas, the main emphasis is on ''Advaitam.'' That is why this third chapter is called ''Advaita Prakarana''. ''Prakarana'' means chapter. So, he wants to advise ''Shantam, Shivam, Advaitam''. These are the words that have been taken from the seventh mantra of the Mandukya Upanishad. Throughout, for the last few classes, we have been seeing how, not only through quotations, but through ''Yukti'', through reason, Gaudapada wants to establish that even through reason it is possible to establish that ''Advaita'' alone is the ultimate goal. ''Advaita'' alone is real. Sri Ramakrishna supports this. And we also, through our experience, can definitely understand this. How? Suppose, we feel it is not really supposition, we really feel this whole universe is real. I am real, my body is real, my mind is real, and my experiencing all this world is absolutely real. How can Shruti, which also talks about creation of the world, and creation of the world consists of two factors. One is ''Jeeva'', another is ''Jagat.'' One is what is called ''Jeevatma'', another is called ''Prapancha,'' of this world. Both are created by God. Only thing is instead of saying like a potter creating a pot, like clay becoming a pot. That is the difference. So why cannot we accept this world as real? Now I am talking purely from our experiential point of view. Why can't we take it? Yes, we have the freedom to take it. What is the problem? The problem is all problems arise from our experience. Why? What is the root cause? The root cause is change. Everything is changing. That is why Sri Ramakrishna's third commandment is always cultivate discrimination. What is discrimination? God alone is permanent. Everything is temporary. So, temporariness is what is the real problem.

But in a philosophical way, temporariness can also become a great boon. For example, when we are happy, we do not wish that happiness to come to an end. But in this world, whatever there is, experience is there. Experience always indicates a division, finiteness, duality. The experiencer and the experienced, and both are changing. My mind is also changing, and the external world is also changing. So, if I am very happy, I wish never to break it. There is a problem with this kind of happiness. You know what happens? If we do not contrast happiness with unhappiness, we will not even have the idea of happiness. If we are continuously sleeping, we will not know we are sleeping. If it is continuously light, we will not know it is light. If we are continuously happy, we will not know we are happy. But not only we want to be happy, not only we want to experience happiness, but we want to be aware that we are happy. And that is not possible if continuously if we are happy. We will not know what unhappiness is neither we know what happiness is. But everything is changing. What is the problem? When we are happy, we are unhappy even thinking it is going to change, and it is sure going to change. And when we are unhappy, another ''bhranti'', another illusion comes. This suffering is never ever going to come to an end. Foolish fellow, look back. So, what were you? You were quite happy. But what were you before you were happy? You were unhappy. And what were you before you were unhappy? Happy. So, if you think that whole life, so many lives, we experienced unhappiness, it comes to an end? Why do you delude yourself? This particular unhappiness is going to be permanent.

Now another question related to this is extend this unhappiness, but it is not really all the time unhappiness. What is it? Death. What happens? Whatever I know, good or bad, happy or unhappy, it comes to an end. I cannot contact the world as I know, as I knew it after death. But before birth also, I did not know. I don't know where from I have come. I don't know where I am going to go.

''Kotha ote aashi, kotha bhishe jai, yoda ite jai.''

Part of the Bengali, beautiful Bengali song attributed to some ''devatas'' who were singing to awaken Siddhartha, who was supposed to become Gautama Buddha later on.

So, everything is changing and this nobody can deny. So, happiness changes into unhappiness, unhappiness changes into happiness. If we can accept it, then what is the definition of reality? That which never changes. What is our experience? Everything is changing. But even there is a benefit here that when I witness whatever is changing, everything good and evil, they are changing continuously. When unhappiness comes, it gives us tremendous strength. This also will not last forever if we are wise enough. But what happens? Due to ''Avidya'' or ''Maya'', happiness, we feel should last all the time and unhappiness should never come. That is not going to happen. Therefore, what do the scriptures say? Scriptures say learn the lesson and develop detachment. But the scripture also tells us there is something which is infinite, which is unborn, which is unchanging, and which will never change. And what is its nature? ''Paramananda Swaroopa''. ''Sat Chit Ananda''. It is beyond death, beyond ignorance and beyond all suffering. That is after all what we are seeking all the time. So, for this we have no choice but to believe in the scripture. And why should we believe in the scripture? Because if we are fortunate to come across some people like Ramana Maharshi or Swami Ramdas, great saints, then we can understand that yes, what is the root cause of these people's happiness? They claim they have realized God. Simple words, God realization. And how do we know? We don't know. Because if somebody says I have eaten a very nice, sweet. We don't know whether it is nice, we don't know whether it is sweet. But the aftereffects, that is what we come to know. Yes, this person is very happy, and he is fearless, and he is always cheerful in spite of terrible agony. Like say Sri Ramakrishna during his last days. But there must be a cause. If this is the effect, there must be a cause. So, this is the type of logic we have to employ.

But Gaudapada is telling us in a very logical manner, presenting that logic whatever is one's nature can never change. And whatever is changing is not one's nature. That means if my body is changing, it is its nature. If my mind is changing, it is its nature. So, I cannot change it and say, let my body be immortal and let my mind also be immortal. That's not going to happen. But if my real nature is immortality, then this seeming identity with body-mind is only seeming, is only for a short time. But my immortality can never become mortal. My infinity cannot become finite. My unchanging nature cannot become a changing nature. That is what we discussed in our 21st Karika.

I was only summarizing the few earlier ''shlokas'' and a few more that are going to come. And then Gaudapada gives us several supporting sentences from the ''Shrutis''. That means from the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, etc. So, in the 21st verse, which we have completed in our last class, what does he say? Remember, these are all compositions of Gaudapada.

21st Karika

''na bhavatyamṛtaṃ martyaṃ na martyamamṛtaṃ tathā''

''prakṛteranyathābhāvo na kathaṃcidbhaviṣyati''

What does he say? Immortal cannot become mortal. Nor can the mortal ever become immortal. For it is never possible for a thing to change its nature. So, we have to find out what is my nature. And if my nature is immortality, your nature is also immortality. Everybody's nature is also immortality. What does it mean? It means no person other than a human being ever goes and attends these Mandukya Karika classes. The question, who am I, doesn't arise. We do not know if it arises, they never tell us. No animal, no non-human being tell. But every human being, whenever he gets a blow, he gets to this nature. Yes, it is possible. What is my nature? Can I live forever? Can I know everything? Can I be having unbroken happiness.

And conclusively, Gaudapada tells, ''Amrutam martyam na bhavate.'' That which is immortal, if there is something called immortal, and that's what the scripture is talking about God. And how many immortalities can be there? Only one. So, me, you, they, all of us, that number doesn't count at all. So, it must be one only. Immortal must be one only. Immortal cannot become mortal. ''Prakrutehe'', the nature of anything. ''Na kathanchit pavishyati anyatha bhavaha'', means changing. That means changing into the opposite nature is never possible. So, the essential nature of ''Jeevatma'' is immortality. So, what should a ''Jeevatma'' do to become immortal? Not by doing anything. That is why, ''akrute na pritaha''. So, by action nothing can be changed. Then what can action do? Will it do nothing? Yes, it will do something. What is it? Like the rope has never become a snake, and the snake will never become a rope. So, when the light is brought, and that is called activity. Bringing light is called activity. If we bring, the sooner we bring, the better for us. What happens? The rope will be revealed as the rope, and the snake is understood as only my fear. Rope has never become the snake. Snake cannot become the rope also. It is only a beautiful illustration. So, ''Paramatma'' has never become ''Jeevatma''. ''Paramatma'' has never become this ''Jagat''. Then what is it? Then it must be like mistaking. For mistaking there must be somebody. Somebody means a mind. It is a mistake in the mind. It is a mistake in the notion. These are the important points.

''svabhāvenāmṛto yasya bhāvo gacchati martyatām''

''kṛtakenāmṛtastasya kathaṃ sthāsyati niścalaḥ''

Continuing, same idea, how can he, who believes that the naturally immortal entity, that is ''Paramatma'', becomes mortal as ''Jiva'' and ''Jagat'', maintain that the immortal, after passing through change, retains its changeless nature? Two points are very important here, and very easy to understand. What is it? ''Yasya svabhanena amruto''. By its very nature, that which is immortal. This is about ''Brahman, Paramatma'', etc. ''Martyatam bhavaha gacchati''. How can it become mortal? Earlier we saw nature cannot be changed. So, it is not possible for the immortal to become mortal. And then supposing, yes, yes, it is possible. And who says? There are certain schools of philosophy, especially ''Dvaitha'' philosophy, especially ''Visishtadvaita'' says God has got a very special power whereby he can become the world and ''Jeeva.'' But at the same time, he can remain unchanged. He can change and he also remains. He becomes changed, he also becomes unchanged, remains at the same time. And this is against the all-understandable logic. That is very true also. This is the first point. The changeless cannot become changeful. Because if the changeless becomes changeful then it has violated the rule of logic, reason. But at the same time, supposing it changes, if it changes, then the immortal will not remain immortal. It becomes mortal because it has changed. You cannot counter. It remains the same and it also changes. That is not acceptable. Because ''Visishtadvaitins'', their philosophy is called ''Parinamavada. Parinamavada'' means ''Srishti'' has really taken place. How? Like milk has become curds.

Gaudapada counters, when milk becomes curds has anybody ever seen milk to remain as milk and at the same time become curds? Never. Not only that and once it becomes curds has anybody seen how to change the curds into milk? That is not going to be possible. So, ''Pritakena Amrutaha Tasya Katham Sthasyate Nischalaha.'' Supposing by some activity ''Amrutaha,'' immortality, becomes mortal. Supposing. Then, ''Katham Sthasyate Nischalaha'', how can it retain its immortality and also change into mortality? It is not possible. So, that is the first point.

What is the second point? Very interesting also. I will quote from Sri Ramakrishna's Gospel also. So, what is it? Suppose ''Brahman'' has become ''Jeevatma'' and after going through 84 lakhs of ''janmas'' he becomes awakened. Not only awakened he approaches great people. He determines through faith that the scripture tells, I am ''Brahman'', I want to become ''Brahman''. What am I now? I am not ''Brahman''. What do you want to become? I want to attain ''Brahman'', go to ''Brahman'', become ''Brahman''. How? Through ''sadhana.'' So, this is the second point. Supposing, by some hook or crook, a ''Jeevatma'' attains to ''Paramatma'' and knows I am ''Paramatma''. So, what is the problem? What was the first problem? The immortal has become mortal. What is the second problem? The mortal has become immortal. If once you admit, the immortal once became mortal, even after retaining ''moksha'', if you think eternally you will be changeless, you are a very stupid person. Because whatever changed once can change any number of times. Then, what is going to happen? Well, you become again mortal and you again go on doing ''sadhana'', attend this Mandukya Karika classes, because that is what happens to me also. And can you just imagine eternally you have to attend Mandukya Karika classes. What happens? You will go to ''Brahma Loka'', you cannot escape, because Swami Dayatmananda will come there also and take classes.

So, what does Gaudapada wants to say in this 22nd Karika? That the mortal can never become mortal without changing its nature. And it is not possible to change the nature. Nature means that which is not possible. So, some examples we have seen. What is the nature of fire? Heat. If anybody imagines fire loses its heating capacity, ''thanda ho gaya'', then we have to say he is a very stupid person, unintelligent person. So, it is never going to happen. Does a sweet ever lose its sweetness? No. Does a bitter thing ever lose its bitterness? No. It is not possible. You can boil it, you can do anything. In Telugu we have a beautiful saying, you bring the skin of a black rat and go on washing it again and again and again. What happens? Your brain gets washed, and you become awakened. It is not possible to change the black colour into white colour.

It is not possible. That means the nature cannot be changed. In English also it is there, you can beat a donkey any number of times. It is not going to change into a horse. It is not going to become a horse. So, this is the idea. What are the two ideas we have seen in this 22nd verse? Whatever is one's nature cannot change. What is the nature of ''Brahman''? It is immortality. This immortality can never be changed. But if anybody for argument's sake says, yes, it can be changed and there are some schools of philosophy who believe that. If it can be changed, then what happens? That immortal becomes mortal. That is it. Immortal has lost its nature. It changed its nature. Now that which is immortal, its nature has become mortal. So, what is then possible? Once you can say that, the mortal also can lose its mortality and can become immortal. What is the problem? I pointed out the problem. Because you think I am coming from ''Brahman,'' produced. So, I am a small person. I have really become small. But I can become ''Brahman'' through ''sadhana''. And after 84 lakh ''Janam'' you become ''Brahman'' by obtaining ''Brahman'' knowledge. What were you in the first place? Immortal. What have you become? Mortal. Now what have you become? Through ''sadhana'' you have become immortal. So, what happened? Immortal has changed into mortality. Mortality has changed into immortality. What is the logic next? The immortal again becomes mortal any number of times. This is called reasoning.

So Shankara maintains the disputant, who maintains that the naturally immortal entity becomes mortal. That means it really passes into birth. Makes the futile proposition that that entity before creation is by its very nature immortal. But how can he say that once it changes its nature that it still retains its immortality? What I told you, explained to you earlier. So, this is a very important verse. What is the verse? That in this world because everything is changing, good person can become bad, evil person can become a saint. In fact, there is a saying every saint was a sinner before and every sinner now is going to be a saint in future. What are we talking about? We are not talking about ''Atman''. We are talking about the mind, change in the mind. Mind is changeable. So, a saint also is changeable. A sinner also is a changeable person. So, body can change, mind can change because it is its nature to be changed. So, anything changeable, you can make it beautiful, you can make it ugly, you can make it good, you can make it evil, you can make it a saint, you can make it a sinner, it doesn't really matter. But reason tells us the real essential nature cannot undergo change. So mortal ''jeevas'' cannot become immortal. The infinite cannot become finite, nor the finite can become the infinite. If finite becomes infinite at a particular time, it can become finite at a later time also. So, another important point here is supposing something becomes something else, it takes time. That means ''Brahman'', the immortal, becomes mortal, ''jeevatma, jagat''. Time is necessary because what was before, it changed into something else. To change that into something else, it may take a flash, a billionth of a second or it may take a billion years, doesn't matter. That means ''Brahman'' becomes what is called subject to change. And what brings about that change? Time. That means time existed before ''Brahman'' and ''Brahman'' came later on. So, what made ''Brahman'' immortal? Time. What makes the immortal ''Brahman'' into ''jeeva'' and ''jagat''? Time. And again, what makes ''jeeva'' and ''jagat'' into ''Brahman''? Time. What makes again that ''Brahman'' into ''jeeva'' and ''jagat''? Time. Now the question can come, I hope you will understand, is time changeable or unchangeable? Time is always changeable. If time is unchangeable, can you still call it time? No. What should you call it? Timelessness. I hope I am not confusing too much. What is the essence? ''Brahman'' will always remain immortal. Then what about the ''jeeva'' and ''jagat''? This is ''Advaitic'' point of view. That is seeming changes. Seeming. Rope seemingly has become snake. And again, snake seemingly has become rope. That is possible. But we know the rope has never become the snake and there is no need for the snake to become a rope. Because there is already rope. It has never changed. So that is the illustration. We have to think about it.

Now in the gospel, there was a person called Dr Bhaduri and he did not believe in ''Purva Janma'' and so many other things. So, the devotees made some fun about him. Once M was narrating this incident and this incident happened in the presence of Dr Bhaduri. There was some conversation between some devotees and Dr Bhaduri in the presence of Sri Ramakrishna. Because Dr Bhaduri did not believe in some things then this conversation has come. This was reported by M to Dr Mahindralal Sarkar. So, this is the conversation. The conversation turned to Dr Bhaduri who had also been visiting the Master now and then. M smiling recollecting what happened, Bhaduri said about you that you must begin all over again from the stone and brick bed. Dr Sarkar of course he did not understand. How is that? M, because you don't believe in the Mahatmas, astral bodies and so forth. Perhaps Bhaduri is a Theosophist because they believe in Mahatmas etc. Further you don't believe in the incarnation of God. That's why it is said that when you died the time you would certainly not be reborn as a human being. So then that would be far off. You won't be born even as an animal or bird or even as a tree or a plant. You would have to begin all over again from stone and brick bed. Then after many, many births you might get a human body. Then you might study medicine. Then you might turn to homeopathy. Then you might come into contact with Sri Ramakrishna. Then you won't again believe in the incarnation of Sri Ramakrishna. And then when you die again you start from all over. How many times? Infinite number of times. That will not change. So, this was the funny incident that happened because Bhaduri remarked about Dr Sarkar. So, what was Dr Sarkar's reaction? Oh, my goodness! Because he thought he was a very rational person. Sri Ramakrishna interacted with Dr Mahendralal Sarkar so nicely. Sometimes Mahendralal Sarkar used very harsh words also towards Sri Ramakrishna. And he used to sit aside. He was attracted, very argumentative. He compared himself with Sri Ramakrishna sometimes. This is also like ''hajra'', some ''leela'' has taken place.

Anyway, coming back, what is the 22nd verse telling? The ''Brahman'' has never become ''Abrahman''. Then what about all this? Seemingly yes. Really and that is called ''Vivartavada''. We will continue Karika number 23.

Then a small background I will give you. Now somebody is listening to this Gaudapada's argument. And then he says, Sir, I cannot accept your words. Why? What are you talking? Everything is ''Brahman''. ''Brahman'' is immortal from the Upanishads. And I also have studied Upanishads. And I also can tell the same Upanishads. Practically every Upanishad. Perhaps excepting Kena Upanishad, it doesn't mention. But every Upanishad is talking about creation. For example, In the Taittiriya Upanishad,

''Atmanah Aakashah Aakashah Vayoh Vayor Agnihi Agni Aapah Aapah Prithivi''

''Prithiv Aushadayah Aushadibhyuvannam Annatrasamayah Purushah''

From ''Atman'' is creating or manifesting as ''Aakashah''. So, do you mean to say the creation of the ''Panchabhutas'' which are the constituent materials of both the living as well as the non-living. When the Upanishads are crystal clearly telling about it, do you want to deny? You mean to say these statements are not ''Vedic'' statements? And do you believe that every statement in the ''Veda'' is absolutely true? This is the challenge especially given by ''Mimamsakas''. Because they believe that all the ''Karmakanda'' rituals, you can go to ''Brahma Loka'', live there for a long time. And their concept of ''Mukti'' is very interesting, that you go and be very happy for a long time. That is according to them the highest concept about ''Mukti''. Very interesting for us to study their concept of ''Mukti''. So, what do they do? So, for a long time uninterrupted unbroken happiness should be got. How to get it? So, the ''Vedas'' prescribe certain rituals. ''Swarga Kama Yajeta'' for example. Those who want to go to ''Swarga'', you would perform certain rituals. ''Agnihotram Yuhyat''. So, they are all true because ''Mimamsakas'' are ''Astikas''. They believe in the ''Vedas''. What about ''Advaitins''? 100% they believe. And do you mean to say some sentences in the ''Vedas'' are true, some are false, or the entire ''Veda'' is a ''Pramana''? That is the argument that is given here.

But Gaudapada is countering it in this 23rd Karika. What is he telling?

''bhūtato'bhūtato vāpi sṛjyamāne samā śrutiḥ''

''niścitaṃ yuktiyuktaṃ ca yattadbhavati netarat''

The passing into birth may be real or illusory. Both these views are equally mentioned in the ''Shruti''. That which is supported by ''Shruti'' and corroborated by reason is alone true and not the other. What is the meaning? ''Bhutathaha'' means really. ''Abhutathaha'' means maybe it is not real. That means it is unreal. What is it? ''Srijyamani'', this world is created. ''Jeevatma'' is created. ''Jeevan Jagat'', they are created. From ''Brahman'' they have come. So, is that creation? Whether the ''Vedas'', Upanishads talk about them, whether the creation is real or unreal, both statements ''Shrutihisama''. We get both the statements in the ''Shruti''. We have to accept it. Then what is the conclusion? That means ''Brahman'' is immortal, is also real. ''Jeevatma's'' creation is also real. This world is created is also real because it is the ''Veda'' who is telling. Don't question me. Don't argue with me. For them, for those ''Mimamsakas,'' Gaudapada is answering. But even though it is there,

''Nischitam Yukti Yuktancha Yath Tadbhavati Na Itharadah''.

So, simply don't quote from the ''Vedas'' and Upanishads. What should you do? First of all, ''Yukti Yukta'', that which is acceptable only to everybody's true reason. Not because you believe. What do we do? We first believe in something and take the support of reason to strengthen our beliefs. That is wrong. First you reason out and if it is acceptable then only you believe in it. Then you mould your life according to that belief. This is the correct thing to do. This is ''Yath Tadbhavati Na Itharadah''. That means that which is irrational, that which is superstition should not be believed. This is what Gaudapada is trying to tell. What is he trying to tell? That you are right. When you look in the scriptures, they are talking about ''Brahman'' who is eternal, infinite, unchanging, unborn, deathless, all these things. But at the same time, they are talking also about creation, which is always changing, ever changing. ''Brahman'' is never changing, which is finite, which is having birth, which is having death. That is also there. But how can two contradictory statements be made by the same ''Shruti''? What is the law? The law is if something has come out of clay, it must contain 100% the nature of clay. If something has come out of gold, it must be 100% gold. Keep this in mind. So, if the ''Jeeva'' and ''Jagat'' has come from the ''Brahman'' whose nature is immortal, unchanging, eternal, unborn, etc. And we are talking about what is born. So, it is impossible because suddenly a pot cannot claim I am a golden pot. If it is made from gold, it cannot claim I am an earthen pot. If it is made out of clay, it cannot claim I am a golden pot. This is what we all understand. So, how can that which is the effect of the cause of ''Brahman'', who is unborn, etc. as I mentioned, how can it be? What do we say? It is born, a baby is born, and it is changing every second. It is subject to death, subject to ''Sukha, Dukha''. The person may become good or evil, happy and unhappy, suffering from ''Cheeta'' and ''Ushna'' and profit and loss, etc. So, how are you going to explain these things? That is why earlier Karikas are telling nature cannot change. So, if a clay pot is born out of clay, it cannot change its nature of clayishness, which is clay. 100% it is nothing but clay. Similarly, golden ornament. So, either you say that this is born, or it looks as though it is born, but really it is not born. These are the philosophical arguments, and this particular argument is called ''Vivartavada'', not ''Parinamavada''. ''Parinama'' means real change. ''Vivarta'' means seeming change.

So, how do we understand? Then Gaudapada counters it and says, you know what, you don't simply pick up some statements from the Upanishads and then go on arguing. That is what the ''Veda'' says. The same ''Veda'' which tells everything is born, the same ''Veda'' tells later on very clearly, not in an ambiguous manner says there is no ''Jeevatma''. Every ''Jeeva'' is nothing but ''Brahman''. But because of ''Maya'' the person thinks. Because of the mind, because of thinking through the mind, which is called ''Maya''. Mind is ''Maya''. ''Maya'' means time-space-causation. Because he is thinking as if I am born, as if is okay. But I am born is wrong. So, the whole universe, nobody is born, no ''Jeeva'' is born, no ''Jagat'' is born, seemingly born. Yes, we accept it because we are experiencing it. We cannot deny our experience. This is what is telling that you study the ''Vedas''. For children, everything is born and for grown-ups, nothing is born.

And there is a beautiful story. I will share that story with you. There was a Prince who once drank some dirty water, and it was crawling with full of worms. And anyway, he drank some water because he was very thirsty. And since then he developed a feeling that a snake, a ''bachcha'', he had swallowed and it is growing up and day by day it is growing up. Several months passed. He was not able to eat and then the king tried many people and finally a man had come. Everybody was telling, no, no, no, no, there is no snake, it is all your brain problem. The more you say to a madcap you are mad, he is likely to say I am absolutely okay. Because for a madman, he is not a madman. One man had come because of a huge reward. And what did he do? He said, oh my God, the snake has become so big in your stomach. But fortunately, my great-grandfather has a remedy. This kind of cases could be seen earlier also because madness is born along with ''Brahman'' himself. So, it is a very ancient disease. So, the king was very happy. What to do? It is very stubborn, it has to be brought up. How? You drink this bitter medicine, very bitter, full stomach and then after few hours such a purging will come, and the snake cannot withstand. It has to come out. There is no other way. So, the Prince agreed instantaneously. Why? He is the first man who said the snake is real. That means this person is sane. Everybody was insane. So, he drank it happily and the ''Vaidya'' assured him that by tomorrow morning he will be alright. So, there was a toilet which was in darkness. And he said, you have to go and purge in darkness only because the snake will not come out if there is light. So, the Prince agreed. So, he went there. He knew that it is a clean room. So, he went fearlessly and such a purging he had that for several minutes, the purging started unstoppably and then his stomach became very light. He came out. Immediately, the ''Vaidya'' rushed into that lavatory with a light and brought a big grown-up snake. He said, I told you it is dead because of the medicine I have given and all that. And of course, he got great reward not for his fake medicine but for his intelligence. He required it. So, what happened? This fellow cleverly had planted unbeknown to that Prince a dead snake and the Prince could not understand. Of course, when you are in agony, you are not going to see snakes there. You are only seeing for an opportunity. So as soon as this was shown, and it is quite vague. I told you all these other scoundrels never believed all those things. And this man had become very rich. We are all like that. We are all Princes. What is it? ''Sunvant Vishwe Amrutasya Putra''. And we are being told again and again that you have no disease. You are not a ''Jeeva,'' and we say the whole world is mad. Shankaracharya is the maddest of all the people. When I am a ''Jeeva'', how dare he say? The dualists have created hell for all ''Advaitins'' and in that they created a very special type of hell for Shankaracharya because he is the root cause. He is called ''Mayavadi.''

So, what are we talking about? This person he thinks he has become ''Jeeva''. You think like that. Now for all those people ''Srishti'' is real because he will not take the medicine otherwise. So go and study. Go on doing rituals. ''Chitta Shuddhi'' takes place. Better understanding comes and then he will be in a position where he develops discrimination becomes an ''Adhikari'', ''Sadhana Chatushtaya Sampannaha''. Then his ''Guru'' will come and give him a true meaning. And then the person has to meditate. Is it true? How can I understand? How can I change my life? And he will become in the end, become means he understands I am, I was ''Brahman,'' I am ''Brahman'', I will be ''Brahman''. Then what was born? A wrong notion. What was removed? A wrong notion. That is all that happens. This is the beautiful thing earlier.

So Gaudapada says the origination of the world should not be accepted. The origination of the ''Jeeva'' should not be accepted. The world has not originated from ''Brahman''. The ''Jeeva'' has not originated from ''Mana''. Then the question comes is Gaudapada a ''Prachana Boudha''? Because Buddhists don't accept ''Vedas''. Is Gaudapada like that? No. There is a dispute. But no. Gaudapada is the greatest believer in the ''Vedas'' because all the time he is doing nothing but quoting from the ''Vedas''. So Gaudapada answers not by saying that the ''Veda'' is wrong but by saying that that the ''Veda,'' Upanishad should be read in its entirety. Don't simply read a few statements at the beginning. You go to the end. And what is the end? That is called Upanishad. What does the Upanishad say? ''Mahavakya''. What is the ''Mahavakya''? ''Aham Brahmasmi''. So, taking only a few selective statements meant for those who are beginners those who are growing up can always create problems. That is why Sri Ramakrishna says ''Advaita'' is the last word. Everybody is none other than ''Brahman''. And ''Advaita'' means knowing that I am ''Brahman''. This is ''Advaita''. We have to go through those steps. We have to go through ''Brahmachari Ashrama,'' ''Grihasta Ashrama,'' ''Vanaprastha Ashrama'', finally ''Sannyasa Ashrama''. It is a very natural growth. So, ''Vedas'' do talk about both statements, creation and non-creation. The creation is meant for immature minds. Non-creation is meant for those who are ready for the final teaching.