Wiki Vedanta - User contributions [en]

Mandukya Karika Lecture 102 on 10-May-2023

2023-06-13T18:24:35Z

Marrivamsi: Created page with "== Summery == In the ninth and tenth Karikas of the Mandukya Karika, Gaudapada explains the concept of Advaita (non-duality) and the nature of the Atman (the Self). He uses examples to illustrate the changelessness and indivisibility of the Atman, comparing it to space (Akasha). Gaudapada emphasizes that the Atman is not subject to birth, death, or any changes, just as space cannot be divided or stained. He also states that everything in the world, including the body and..."

== Summery ==
In the ninth and tenth Karikas of the Mandukya Karika, Gaudapada explains the concept of Advaita (non-duality) and the nature of the Atman (the Self). He uses examples to illustrate the changelessness and indivisibility of the Atman, comparing it to space (Akasha). Gaudapada emphasizes that the Atman is not subject to birth, death, or any changes, just as space cannot be divided or stained. He also states that everything in the world, including the body and mind, is an assemblage (Sanghata) and not the true Self. The world is compared to a dream, where objects appear different but are all created by the mind. Gaudapada concludes that the Atman is pure consciousness and not a product of assemblages or appearances.

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, there is a section called Madhukanda, which discusses the concept of "Madhu," which means honey. However, in this context, it refers to something marvelous rather than literal honey. The idea conveyed is that everything we experience in the world is like honey to us because it brings us happiness. We may love objects, people, or experiences because they provide us with happiness, but in reality, we love them as instruments for obtaining happiness, which is our true nature.

However, the same person who loves and enjoys objects can become an object of enjoyment for others. Just as a person becomes honey for someone else, they can also become a bhogya vastu (enjoyable object) for others. This is illustrated by the example of a person being pursued by a hungry tiger. In this case, the person becomes the bhogya vastu for the tiger. This concept is further expanded to include the relationship between humans and devatas (gods).

According to the Upanishad, all human beings are devanam pashu, meaning animals or creatures belonging to the gods. The devatas do not want humans to progress spiritually and realize their true nature as the Atman (self), because once a person realizes their identity as the Atman, the devatas lose control over them. Therefore, they try to prevent humans from realizing their true nature by offering various temptations and distractions.

However, if a person seeks liberation (moksha) and practices spiritual disciplines, the devatas will try their best to obstruct them. But once a person attains realization, they become the Atman of the devatas themselves, transcending any control or influence. These realized souls are referred to as jivanmuktas, liberated while living.

The Upanishad also highlights that everyone in the world is both a subject and an object. The world becomes an object of our happiness, and we become objects for others' happiness. In this way, we are pashus (creatures) for the devatas, who do not want to lose us. We become slaves to anything we are dependent upon, whether it is a material object, a season, a stage of life, or even death itself.

Gaudapada, the commentator on the Upanishads, emphasizes that these divisions and identifications are based on ignorance. The Atman is neither a slave nor an object of enjoyment but the underlying reality that makes all experiences possible. Just as we mistakenly identify different stomach sizes with the space within them, we also mistakenly identify the individual self (jeevatma) with various roles and identities. In truth, the Atman remains unchanged and unaffected by these distinctions.

This understanding will be further elaborated in the upcoming classes by Gaudapada, discussing the divisions made from ignorance and emphasizing that the Atman is beyond any roles or identifications.

== Full Transcript ==
We have been studying the explanation of what is ''Advaita'' in the third chapter of the Mandukya Karika by Gaudapada.

I will quote the Karika number 9.

''maraṇe saṃbhave caiva gatyāgamanayor api''

''sthitau sarvaśarīreṣu ākāśenāvilakṣaṇaḥ''

In this ninth Karika, Gaudapada wants to establish the ''Atman'' is ''Advaitam''. One of the characteristics of that which is one is it never changes. Because change always takes place only when something comes into contact with something else. For example, there is metal, and it comes into contact with some wetness, atmosphere, then it becomes rusted. But if there were to be no atmosphere, no dust, no stain, so we can apply this one to every example. Something falls into the food, something stains. For example, a screen can be stained. Always what is the rule? That by itself one cannot be stained and it must be having a second object. Part of this understanding is that it must happen, a first thing must come into contact with a second thing. That means time factor is there. And for both of them to come into contact, ''Akasha'' is needed, a third factor is there. And there must be some cause why they come together. That is the fourth factor. There are many other factors. So, everything in this world is what is called different. That difference with difference, every object is different from every other object. Everybody is different from every other body. So, everything is different from everything else and that is why it is called an object and that is why it is subject to change. And that is what is indicated by birth, growth, old age, disease, death, happiness, unhappiness. Everything is changing from one to the other. And ''Akasha'' doesn't change. That is the example given whether the ''Akasha'' is enclosed by a pot, by a house, by a hall or by whatever, it cannot be divided. Here is another profound point we have to understand. When something is consisting of parts, then only it can be parted. You know we use that expression in English language, two friends parted from each other, husband and wife parted from each other, brother and sister or enemies or any two objects, there must be two, they must be separate. So, this is one part, that is another one part. But that which is part less and ''Akasha'' is part less and that is why ''Akasha'', space. Space is what in English language is called emptiness. Emptiness cannot be divided because how are you going to if something is full, you can divide it. Something is empty, how are you going to make it empty? So, this is a marvellous example, we have to deeply meditate even to grasp the idea of emptiness, what is space.

For most people, this idea of space is not understandable. Why? Because there is so much of space inside and outside us. So, it is very important for us, ''Atman'' is like that. Earlier he has given ''Ghatakasha'' and ''Mahakasha''. Who is telling it? ''Akasha'' is not telling. We are telling, we look at the pot and say this is pot space. And we look, when there is no pot, this is ''Mahakasha'', inside outside. No, space cannot be divided. At least keep it as an important statement. Now what happens? ''Atman'' is like that. Therefore, for ''Atman'' to come and to go, that is called change. Coming and going is part of the understanding called change. Coming and going can happen only in time and in space and with regard to other objects. So, this is the example given. Like ''Akasha'' can never be divided, ''Atma'' cannot also undergo any change. And that which is changeless, you cannot call ''Atma'' is born, ''Jeevatma'' is born, ''Jeevatma'' is dead. No, ''Atman'' is not born, ''Atman'' is not dead. Just as pot space is born, though it is not born, we say because of ignorance, as soon as pot is created, pot space is also created. So as soon as we see a body, immediately we say this ''Atman'' has entered into this body-mind complex and it is called ''Jeevatma''. That's what Gaudapada wants to say, ''Marane'', whether the body goes out. Because ''Marana'' cannot happen to the ''Atman'', it can happen to only body. And not only it can happen, it will happen. Not only it will happen at one particular time of which we take cognizance, like what we call death, every millisecond, everything is changing in this whole world. That is why the very name of the world is ''Jagat, Gati'', continuously moving in a flux like a river. So ''Sambhava'' means ''Janma, Gati, Agamana, Urapi''. That is to say, an unborn baby is born, a born baby becomes a child, a child becomes, this is called coming and going and continuous change it means. So, whether we say birth or death or moving about in time, space and causation, but this ''Atman, Sarvasarireshu Stithaha'', called ''Jeevatma, Akashena Avilakshanaha'', it is completely to be understood like the ''Akasha'', that means no coming, no going, no change takes place.

''Ekam eva advithiyam''

''ajo nityaha shashvataha ayam puranaha na hanyamane na hanyate hanyamane sharire''

This is what Bhagavan Krishna is condensing and this is what Gaudapada Acharya, who comes much much later than Sri Krishna, is also telling. This is the highest teaching. Even if we may not understand it now, this is the highest truth. ''Atman'' in regard to its birth, death, going and coming, that is transmigration and reborn in another and undergoing ''Shadurmi'', sixfold changes and its existence in different bodies. Why is this cited? Because I think your ''Atma'' is my ''Atma'' is different. We mistakenly identify what we call persona, personality. My personality, your personality are certainly different, but my awareness and your awareness are not two different things. So, this ''Atman'' is comparable, similar to the ''Akasha''. Therefore, there is no birth, no death. That means Jeeva is never born. Not only that, body also is never born. That means neither ''Jeeva'' is born nor ''Jagat'' is born.

Karika 10

''saṃghātāḥ svapnavatsarve ātmamāyāvisarjitāḥ''

''ādhikye sarvasāmye vā nopapattirhi vidyate''

That is the point Gaudapada wants to tell. And he is giving another illustration. In my last class, I was trying to explain. In ''Advaita Vedanta'', this word ''Sanghata'' has a very special meaning. ''Sanghata'' means a number of parts coming together to work. For example, a house is a very common example. There are doors, there are windows, there is a roof, there is a floor, and there are walls, and there are small rooms, big rooms, almirahs, everything is there. So, what is the point? The point is anything that is an assemblage is called ''Mithya'', appearance not having any awareness or consciousness. That is the first point, they are called ''Jada Vastu''. Our body according to Vedanta is a ''Jada Vastu''. Our mind also is a ''Jada Vastu''. But the ''Atman'', your body and mind are different from my body and mind. Your body is an assemblage. My body is an assemblage. Everything in this world is an assemblage. Another example I will give you. A tree, it consists of roots, trunk, branches, leaves, flowers, fruits. Everything is totally different. Why do we say they are different? Because if they are not different, we would have given only one name. But what are we telling? Root, trunk, branch, leaf, blossom, flower, sweet or bitter, green colour, yellow colour. So many names we are giving. That means they are different parts, and they can be separated. Like a house can be separated, like a car can be separated, like a clock can be separated. And anything that consists of parts is not one and it is an object. It is a ''Jada Vastu''. Secondly, everything, every object in this world is called a ''Sangata''. There is nothing which is all by itself a singular. Everything is a combination. And anything that is a combination is not meant for itself but for somebody else. For example, a car which is consisting of so many parts is not meant for the car. No car ever says, I want to go to the mall, I want to buy. Only what is called an aware person, a conscious being alone can take decisions. I want to use my body to go there and to grab it and to eat it or to get rid of it. Get it or get rid of it all this is possible only for a conscious being. And every assemblage is meant only for a conscious being. What is the point? The point is ''Atman'' is not a ''Sangata''. ''Atman'' is part less like ''Akasha''. Therefore, ''Atman'' is only pure consciousness.

And that is what the Gaudapada wants us to understand. So, everything, he gives an example here, ''Swapnavat''. So first let me give the word meaning, then it will become very clear. So, everything in this world is ''Sangata''. And they are like a world created by each one of us in our dream world. And ''Atma Maya Visarjita'', they are all created by our mind, by imaginations. ''Atma Maya'' means my own ''Maya'' and I create every second. Not only in the dream state, but even in the waking state also, I am creating. Every second, millisecond, billisecond, I am creating my own world. I am creating, that means I am also destroying. The moment my mind moves from one thought to another, all the objects associated with the previous thought are also created before that. And they are maintained for some time and they are kicked out. Visarjita means created. And for that Gaudapada gives an example. But first of all, what happens in the dream world? We go to dream, we create. You enter into a, for example, into a cinema hall. And you will see hundreds of people and everybody is different. The person on the left, person on the right, person in front, person behind, and the people who are working there, the persons who come to visit. Everybody is different from everybody else. And then some people, you know, like VIPs, when a VIP enters, especially in India, when a VIP enters into any town, the whole town is disrupted for several days. Everything is gone. These rascals, they should be shot dead because their only business seems to be to disrupt the normal life of people. Especially if it is like Varanasi, the people visit again and again and again, and ''Hare Rama, Hare Krishna!'' So, everything, we see somebody is great, somebody is small, somebody is rich, somebody is poor, somebody is knowledgeable, somebody is ignoramous, in the dream, exactly like our waking state. ''ādhikye sarvasāmye.'' Sometimes this whole class is a servant class, this whole class is an officer class, this whole class is a doctor's class, or a women's club. So, like that, in the dream also, we make so much difference. But all those things have been made by whom? By one ''Atma Maya''. What is that called? ''Nidra Shakti''. By our power called ''Kalpana Shakti'', that is called ''Nidra Shakti'', we create all the difference, but like the light which appears on the cinema screen, as different objects, both endowed with life and without life. Same thing happens in the dream also. So ''Swapnavat'', like the dream, ''Sarve Sangataha'', every object is an assemblage, and there is so much of difference between one assemblage and another assemblage, even between two hairs, they say, it is all different. But as soon as we wake up, we say, me, the one, I have not changed. But I have been thinking, this is all my creation.

Similarly this whole world is called ''Paramatma'''s dream. And that is, instead of saying ''Paramatma'' is dreaming, a lot of questions will come, why should he dream? Can he not be without dream? Can he have bad dreams, nightmares? Yes, he will also have nightmares. When Ravanasura came and kidnapped Sita, it is a nightmare. But we don't call it ''Bhagawan's'' dream. We call it ''Leela.'' ''Leela'' means what? Let me imagine like this and enjoy it. Let me imagine like this and enjoy it. So, he is becoming the hero, he is becoming the villain, he is becoming the heroine also. So, the fight is like the same actor acts a double role, both hero and villain, and then goes on fighting with each other. So, the whole universe, the differences that we see, they are all created by ''Kalpana Shakti.'' What does it mean? It means when we wake up, we see there is no reality or the dream. And when we wake up, from this ''Maya Shakti'', called this waking state, because remember, this ''Jagradha avastha'' is in a way created by the Divine Lord Himself. Actually no, it is created by each ''Jeeva'' separately.

So just for the sake of easier understanding, okay, God created, it is all just like a dream, that means there is no reality. What does it mean? It means ''Jeeva'' is never created, ''Jeevas'' are never created, ''Jagat'' is never created, but we are seeing it. Yes, you are seeing because you are stupid. So, I am using the word stupid, but ''Vedanta'' is very polite, it says you are an ''Agnani'', you are a ''Bala,'' you are a child sometimes, you are a ''Mandabuddhi''. That is in Mandabuddhi, the direct translation is the bereft of understanding, that is what is called stupid. Okay, this is the meaning of tenth. What is the point? We have to take away, as we call it, everything in this world, including our body-mind, is a ''Sanghata'', is an assemblage, first point. Second point is every assemblage is for the sake of somebody who is conscious. Because every assemblage is an object. An object is bereft of consciousness, and it is always changing and there is so much of difference between not only two objects, but between the same object. Yesterday's rose flower and today's same rose flower are not one and the same. Yesterday's ''payasam'', you keep it outside today, you understand what it is. So, what is the purpose? The purpose is, there is no ''Jeeva'', there is no creation, that's what Gaudapada wants to convey. But we are experiencing it and that experience is because of ignorance and when we get rid of this ignorance, then we don't experience anything. Don't we experience the ''Atman''? No, you don't experience the ''Atman'', because strictly according to ''Vedanta'', experience always takes place between subject and object. When there is no object, subject will disappear. When there is no ''Jagat'', this ''Jeeva'' also will disappear. Then who remains? ''Paramatma.'' Does he not experience himself? We don't call it experience, simply for our easier understanding, God is ''Sat.'' That is what is called Absolute Existence, Absolute Knowledge and Absolute Bliss. That is how Swami Vivekananda had translated it. I hope Gaudapada Karika is making some meaning. Just remember, that temporarily, because of ignorance, we are experiencing all this what is called ''Jeeva, Jagat'', me, I, you, they, it, etc. I am born, and you are born, I am growing, you are growing, I am old, you are old, of course, I am going to die, nobody will say I am dead. Remember, to say I am dead, you should be alive. So, I am going to die, and you are also going to die. That gives me great joy, because I cannot tolerate if I die and you are alive. That is intolerable. So, what is it? Though appearances are there, reality is not there. Again, for that, ''Advaita Vedanta'' gives, of course, dream is a best example, and then seeing, or mistaking, or superimposing a snake upon a rope is another example, and seeing a huge body of cool water in summer season is another example, and seeing silver on a seashell is another example, and sometimes seeing beautiful flower garlands in the sky, that is another example. Any number of examples, but the essence is that ''Brahman'' is never born, and is not going to be born. But so far as we are concerned, we are born, so, take it as a temporary reality. Temporary reality. That is the idea.

And then, Gaudapada doesn't want simply to say that don't think that I am saying this, and I might be mistaken. No, I am only echoing what the scriptures are telling. ''Shruti Pramana''. That's what he is going to give in the next few ''Karikas''.

Karika number 11.

''rasādayo hi ye kośā vyākhyātāstaittirīyake''

''teṣāmātmā paro jīvaḥ khaṃ yathā saṃprakāśitaḥ''

The individual ''Jeeva'', which is nothing other than the non-dual Supreme ''Brahman'', is the Self of the five sheaths, such as the physical, the mental and so on, which have been exhaustively described in the ''Taittiriya Upanishad'', both in the second chapter called ''Ananda Valli,'' and much more elaborately in the third chapter called ''Bhrigu Valli''. ''Valli'' means a chapter. So, the Supreme, ''Paramatman'', is like the total space, has already been described earlier. ''teṣāmātmā paro jīvaḥ.'' Now, a little bit. I will give you the essence so that we can understand it easily. Those who have studied ''Taittiriya Upanishad'', there was a great soul. He was a ''Brahmavadin''. That means he wants to realize ''Brahman''. His name was ''Bhrigu''. And where should he go? He should approach a teacher because this Bhrigu was an ''Adhikari''. ''Sadhana Chatushtaya Sampanna Adhikari''. What did he do? He looked around. Then he said, how blessed I am! I don't need to go anywhere. My own father is the greatest ''Brahma Jnani''. And truly so. Like Maitreyi need not have gone anywhere. Like Holy Mother need not have gone anywhere. Sri Ramakrishna was the Supreme Guru. Yajnavalkya was the Supreme Guru. And here Varuna, the father of Bhrigu, was the Supreme Guru. So, he approached and said, Revered Sir, ''Bhagavan. Bhagavan'' means you are God. ''Bhagavan''. So please teach me about ''Brahman''. And then nobody can point out this is ''Brahman''. It is impossible. But we can show like a pointer, like symbols on the wall, where you sign, like signs on the wall. This is the way to toilet. This is the way to such and such, what is called departure gate, etc. So, I will only give you the hints. What did he tell? That from where the entire universe has come and by which the entire universe is being sustained and ultimately the whole universe returned unto which.

''yato va imani bhutani jayante yena jatane jivante yat prayanty abhisamvisanthi''

So, now you meditate upon it. You can only realize God, or your own true nature, through ''Tapasya''. And ''Tapasya'' is the only way. So, Bhrigu got the instructions, ''Mahavakya''. That is why it is called ''Mahavakya''. Where from we are coming? From God. Where are we living? In God. And where are we going to return back? It is only words. We are not going to go to some other place. It is only realizing, all the while, we are ''Brahman''. We were ''Brahman'', we are ''Brahman, we'' will be ''Brahman''. But we thought, we are not ''Brahman''. And then this is called temporary madness. And that madness, or ''Ajnana'', will be removed by doing ''Sadhana'', following properly the teachings of Sadguru. And that is what Bhrigu had done. Now, in this third ''Valli,'' or chapter, so, every ''Paramatma'', it is wrong to say every ''Paramatma.'' ''Paramatma,'' when He puts on different dresses, things like when we put on, when we don't have minimum amount of dressing, we are at house. When we put a particular dress, we are players in the playground. When we go to the hospital, putting on a special white coat, and a stethoscope, we will be called doctors or officers. Like that, it is the dress, it is the duty, it is the position, which makes the person being called by different names. But it is the same person.

Like that ''Paramatma'' is only one. But for the sake of leading a ''Sadhaka'', an earnest, sincere ''Sadhaka'' to that reality, my friend, so, you are thinking, because of your ignorance. And what are you thinking? That I am the body. This identity with this physical body, in which this body, in technical language is called ''Annamaya Kosha''. ''Annamaya'' means that which is born from food, made up of food, that is called born from food, and it is sustained by food, and it also becomes food. I dealt with these thoughts elaborately in many classes. I am repeating because repetition is necessary. So, parent from parent's body, which is made up of food. If they don't eat food their bodies will not be sustained. So that food becomes, what is called ''Jeevakana'', the living cell. And that two living cells, combined together, and our body is born. Remember only body is born. The mind and the ''Karana Sharira'', they come from ''Janma Janmantra''. It is only the body which changes frequently. Frequently means every few years. Even 100 years is nothing. So, it is born of food. And whatever is born of whatever, that is sustained only by that something. For example, a golden ornament, can be sustained only by gold. A wooden furniture can be sustained only by wood. So, this body made up of food called ''Annamaya Kosha''. ''Kosha'' means that which houses my true self. Everybody's true self. This true self is covered by five dresses called five bodies. What is the outermost dress? This physical body. And then Varuna instructed him, go and think. What do you think? That I am not this ''Annamaya Kosha''. How come? Because whatever I can experience is not me. I am experiencing this body from birth to death. Therefore, I am not the body. That is why everybody says I see this body, I hear this body, I experience this body. So, whatever we experience is not the experiencer. That is the most fundamental ''Advaita Vedantic'' principle. Therefore, since I am experiencing the physical body all the time, I am not the physical body. I am the witness of the subject of the physical body. So, I, the subject is the ''Atma'', and whatever I am experiencing is the object.

And then Bhrigu, after understanding this comes and tells, but something tells me this realization is not complete, teach me further. And then again Varuna says, go and do ''Tapasya''. And then it made Bhrigu think and he went and did ''Tapasya''. He said, no, what is it that really rules the body? ''Prana''. And then, immediately he says, I am ''Prana''. ''Prana'' becomes the ''Atma'', and ''Annamaya Kosha'' body becomes ''Anatma''. And then, after some time, he does more ''Tapasya''. Then he says no, what is it that controls the ''Prana''? The mind, the thoughts. That is why when you hear your favourite, what is called cinema is coming or your favourite actor is acting, even if you are feeling like dead, then you want to go and see it as soon as possible. So, a cricket lover as soon as he hears and he wants to sleep only, but he comes out to life. Somebody comes at 12 o'clock, I brought some ''Rasagullas'' for you. And immediately even a dead body will wake up, eat and becomes dead again. Literally, that is what we are having. It may take some time. That is what is happening, going to happen. So, this Bhrigu did ''Tapasya'' knows what controls the ''Prana'' is the thoughts. That is called mind. That is called ''Manomaya Kosha''. I am the ''Manomaya Kosha'', and then I am controlling this ''Pranamaya Kosha''. So, when Bhrigu identified himself with the ''Pranamaya Kosha'', ''Pranamaya Kosha'' became his ''Atma'', that is, I am ''Pranamaya Kosha''. Body became an object. When the same Bhrigu progressed further and identified himself with the mind, and then the ''Pranamaya Kosha'' becomes the object, ''Manomaya Kosha'' becomes the ''Atma'', and he went further. Then what controls the mind is firm decision, a strong will, a great strong desire, that is called ''Vijnanamaya Kosha''. So, when he identified with ''Vijnanamaya Kosha'', all the other ''Koshas'' become objects, especially the ''Manomaya Kosha''. Then what is the ''Atman''? He thinks that I am the ''Vijnanamaya Kosha''. Then he finds a defect in it. And then he moves further through ''Tapasya''. He comes ''Anandamaya Kosha''. That is, he is being said ''Rasadaya'' means ''Anandamaya Kosha Dhyaha''. So, that ''Anandamaya Kosha''. At first he is happy, I am ''Anandamaya Kosha''. Then he finds that again he will wake up. That is why the deep sleep, ''Sushupti Avastha'' is called ''Anandamaya Kosha''. You know that. That is ''Annamaya Kosha''. It is ''Jagrat Avastha, Sthula Sharira''. ''Anandamaya Kosha'' is compared to the ''Sushupti Avastha'' or ''Pragnya''. And in between the three that comes, ''Pranamaya, Manomaya, Prana, Manas'' and ''Vijnanamaya'' forms the ''Sukshma Sharira''. So, when you are identifying with ''Sukshma Sharira'', then gross body becomes object and ''Sukshma Sharira'' becomes the ''Atma''. When the person goes into ''Sushupti'' he identifies himself as the ''Atman'', that is ''Anandamaya Kosha''. And both the gross and subtle bodies become the objects. But then he falls down as it were by waking up. Then he says, this is also not complete. That is why I experience the ''Anandamaya Kosha''. That is why it is called ''Kosha''. Then, what is ''Kosha''? ''Kosha'' means a sheet. What is this sheet housing? ''Ananda''. I am not ''Anandamaya Kosha''. I am ''Ananda''. I am ''Ananda Swaroopa'', ''Sat Chit Ananda''. That ''Ananda'' is called the ''Atma''. That is what, as an authority for what I am telling I am quoting from the scripture, ''Shrutis'', and this is the quotation from the ''Taittiriya Upanishad''. That is what Gaudapada is referring to in this eleventh mantra. ''Rasadaiyohi e Kosha, t''hose ''Koshas'', ''Pancha Koshas'', like ''Anandamaya Kosha'', ''Taittiriya Upanishad, Yakhyatha'', so beautifully elaborated and commented upon, ''Tesham Atma''. So, the Koshas are not the ''Atma'', but he who is using those ''Koshas'', identifying with them, and then experiencing the good and bad, the happiness and unhappiness, and he is ''Paraha''. ''Para'' means separate, that ''Jeeva''. That ''Jeeva'' means until now, whichever ''Kosha'' he is identifying, he is entitled as ''Jeeva''. The moment he says I am the experiencer of all the five ''Koshas'', or I am the experiencer of what is called ''Avasthatraya'', waking, dream and dreamless. Then I know, I am separate from this ''Sthula Sharira, Sukshma Sharira, Karana Sharira.'' So ''Atma Paro Jeevaha'', and how ''Kamyatha Sanprakashithaha'', so it is like this space, as we have described, whether you create pot space, etc. The space is indivisible, and thoughts come and go, but ''Akasha'' is permanent. ''Atman'' is permanent. Bodies come and go. Only in this state of ignorance, we identify ourselves with whichever body we are. Look at this one. When I was a baby, what was I telling? Who are you? I am a child. When I become a young man, oh, I am a young man. When I become old age, I am an old person. So, tell me, why are you changing your words? Three times I asked you, and three different replies. You must be really mad. Yes, yes, I am a mad man. So, this madness is called ''Agnana''. So, whoever is telling, I am the ''Sukshma Sharira,'' that is called madness. But I am the experiencer of the ''Sukshma Sharira'', ''Sthula Sharira'', ''Karana Sharira'', that is called ''Paramatma.''

Gaudapada gives a very funny example. This ''Akasha'', supposing you imagine ten people are there. One is like Bhima Sena and another is like that Sudama. So, they have stomachs. Sudama's stomach, what ''Akasha''? ''Dina Akasha,'' ''Garib Akasha,'' because it is a small stomach. Bhima's stomach, big ''Akasha''. So big ''Akasha'', medium sized ''Akasha'', small ''Akasha'' and all these differences are made. Does it make any difference in the ''Akasha''? No. Stomach is big. So, we call it stomach ''Akasha''. Bhima's stomach ''Akasha''. Why do we call it Bhima ''Akasha''? Because I think, I suspect, he is mostly identified only with the stomach. The whole cart load of food meant for Bakkasura had finished. And then the more he was eating, the more ravenously hungry he was becoming. You have to understand that. So, all those people were identified with the stomachs. That is why after eating so many Tirupati ''Laddus'', you don't find any ''Bakka Asura'' in the Tirupati priesthood. In any priesthood, huge stomachs are hanging out. Swami Vivekananda used to say, once he gave a very marvellous talk and then, all about God Realization. And somebody asked him, Swami, are you a God Realized soul? By that time his stomach is walking in front of him at least two feet. So, he looked at his stomach and said, do I look like a Realized soul? He evaded the question. But what is meant is, that we only see, every person is identified only with this physical body. What is beauty? Physical body. What is celebrity? Physical body. If there is no body, who is the celebrity? Without body, there is no celebrity, there is no bad person, there is no good person. It is only body related.

So, this is what he is telling, that we are all like the ''Akasha''. And this ''Akasha'', may be different in a child's stomach, a young man's stomach, in a diseased person's stomach, in Bhima Sena's stomach, Bakkasura's stomach. ''Akasha'' doesn't differ. It is only the ''Koshas'', that is called the stomachs. From the stomach point of view, big ''Akasha'', small ''Akasha'', big pot space, small pot space, etc. So, Gaudapada is giving, that every ''Kosha'' is what is called ''Anatma''. He who is experiencing that pure consciousness, like ''Akasha'', is the only ''Atman''. That means it cannot be divided, etc. etc. Then, he is further quoting, from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, in the 12th Karika.

''dvayordvayormadhujñāne paraṃ brahma prakāśitam''

''pṛthivyāmudare caiva yathākāśaḥ prakāśitaḥ''

So, this is what is called, I forestalled, by telling about this ''Udara'' that comes in this 12th Karika. There are four chapters in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. In the second chapter, there are so many sections, and the fifth section is called ''Madhukanda''. ''Madhu'' means honey, but it has nothing to do with honey. But what is meant is a marvellous thing. Everybody is a ''Madhu'' for everybody else. That is to say that when I see a first-class honey, then that honey becomes really honey. When a young man sees a young woman what does he call her? Honey. And when the same fellow, after many years of marriage forgets her name, what does he call her? Honey. So, some fellow was surprised, you still call your wife honey? Yes, yes, because I forgot her name long back. What is meant is whatever we experience that is called honey. So, I love honey. I love sweet. I love any object. ''Shabda sparsha roopa rasa gandha''. Whatever gives me happiness I love it. Really I don't love the object. I love the object because that becomes an instrument for me to obtain happiness which is my own nature. But the point here is that when the same person, after eating nicely, and he becomes ''madhu'' himself, and aspired by a hungry tiger what does this fellow become? He becomes a ''madhu'', a ''bhogya vastu'', for the tiger. That is why there is a beautiful, marvellous discussion. I cannot describe how wonderful it is. That is, every human being is ''devanam pashu''. This is the first statement. That is, no ''devata'' wants any human being to become progressing in spiritual life and know that I am the ''atman''. Because, once a person comes to know I am the ''atman'', the ''devatas'' will have absolutely no control over that fellow. It is a beautiful discussion. But then, ''devanam pashu.'' ''Pashu'' means an animal. The example is given. Suppose there is a man. He has got ten cows. And one cow is gone missing. Then, he will be searching for that one cow. Why? Not because he loves the cow. Because it gives such a beautiful, sweet milk. And that cow he does not want to miss. Anything that gives us happiness we do not want to miss. If wives are giving happiness they should not be missed. If husbands are giving happiness they should not be missed. But you have to understand the opposite also. So, if they are not giving happiness they should be deliberately missed. So, that is the understanding. Like that, every human being, he becomes a ''pashu''. Like a cow, like a goat, like any other animal, or like even a servant. If you have got a first class cook, and your rich neighbour comes to know that his cook is a horrible cook and your cook is a most marvellous cook. Secretly he will make a double or triple salary and then he will steal. One company steals other people's office workers and even their secrets also. This is the open secret. So, like that if we miss anybody who is contributing for our happiness that object is called a ''pashu''. And if we miss even one ''pashu'' we become highly unhappy, agitated, want to go in search of that ''pasuhu''. Similarly, all human beings are ''pashus'' because they offer ''pujas'', they offer ''sthuthis'', they offer pilgrimages. They offer ''pujas'', they do everything for the ''devatas''. And then you are Indra, you are Chandra, they want to hear it all the time. They are not also free. So, they don't want to lose you. And how do they lose you? Because, when you say I am ''Paramatma'', these ''devatas'' become like ''pashus'' for ''Paramatma''. We are like ''pashus'', our ''pashus'', we have ''pashus'', and they are ''pashus'' for us. We are ''pashus'' for the ''devatas'', and ''devatas'' are ''pashus'' for God. ''Sarve Devaah Balimavahanti''.

So, this is what is said in one of the Upanishads. So, like that, it is given that the whole world, everybody in this world is both subject and an object. The whole world is the object for my happiness. Then I am able to experience it. And when the world is able to experience me I become an object. And that object, as just now I mentioned, is called a ''pashu''. ''Pashu'' means, a means, an instrument, of one's own benefit. Some ''laba'' is there. So, in the beginning the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says in some other place that all ''manushyas'' are ''devata naam pashu''. This is among the animals. So, ''devatas'' don't want, they put obstructions, they will give you more salary, they will construct a house, they will send you ''Rambha, Urvashi, Tilottama''. So, don't go on offering for us. But if somebody says these are all I have seen, I am not satisfied, I want to become ''mukta'', free, from this ''pashrutva''. Therefore, I want to practice, pray, then they will try their level best. But once a person realizes that person will not be, they will not be able to do, because he becomes. You know what a realized soul becomes? From ''devata naam pashu'', he has become ''devanaam atma''. So, their own ''atma''. Nobody can hurt, harm, or become, transcend their own ''atma''. So, all these ''jeevan muktas'', they become ''atmas'' of the ''devatas'' themselves. ''Devatas'' are still ignorant people, because they are in ''samsara''. They are like upper class people. They may be enjoying but they are bound souls only. Now what is said in this 12th Karika. There is the 2nd chapter, 5th section is called ''madhu brahmana''. Every section is called ''brahmana''. This is called ''madhu brahmana''. That is to say every object in this world is ''madhu'' to every object in this world. And surprisingly, we are not only ''deva naam pashu'', we are ''manushya naam pashu'', we are ''pashu naam pashu'', we are ''bhogya vastus'', including for the mosquito we are the ''bhogya vastu'', including for our cows. Because as soon as the cow comes what do you do? You fellow, you go there and then pour water for them, rub their backs, massage their backs, and protect them, and see that they are okay, and then they are being served by you. So, every object in this world becomes one's own ''bhogya vastu'', enjoyable object. And so we also become enjoyable objects for the servants also. How? Because we don't want to lose the servants. Why? Because we are dependent upon them. And whenever we are dependent upon anything, immediately we become slaves for that particular object. So, if I like a sweet, I am a slave of the sweet. Who rules over me? That sweet. So, every human being, every being, ''prani,'' both become a ''bhogya kartha'', ''bhogta'', and also ''bhogya''. That means we are ''pashus'' in every way, all the time, for everybody else. We are ''pashus'' for the, what is called, summer season, winter season, rainy season, every season. We are ''pashus'' for the childhood, youth, we are slaves to the youth, we are slaves to the old age, we are slaves even to death. There is nobody who is free. This marvellous idea not only we are ''devanam pashu'', but we are ''pashus''. That means ''bhogya vastu'', enjoyable objects for everybody is beautifully enlarged in this ''madhu brahmanam''. So, Gaudapada is telling there are two things are there, the ''adhyatmika, adhidaivika'', the ''jeevatma, paramatma'', and many examples of many pairs are given which we will talk in our next class.

But what is important is, that all these are divisions made purely from ''ajnana''. The ''atman'' is not a slave to anybody. It is neither the ''bhogta'', nor the ''bhogya,'' but that which makes this possible. And that is what he wants to say by quoting. And as I mentioned earlier that there are different sized stomachs, and we say this person's stomach is big. That means the ''akasha'' in his stomach is big and the baby's stomach is very small, and because of some disease it is shrunk. Therefore, the ''akasha'' in this particular sick child's stomach is very small. Small stomach, big stomach, medium sized stomach, infinite number of sized stomachs, all these we are identifying with the ''akasha'', which is totally an ignorant thing to do. Like that we are making the same mistake with regard to the ''Atma''. This ''jeevatma'' is a small servant, this ''jeevatma'' is a master, this ''jeevatma'' is a scientist, this ''jeevatma'' is a doctor. Actually speaking it has nothing to do with the ''atman''. ''Atman'' is exactly the same thing. It is a marvellous idea. I would like to elaborate a little bit, and in our next class I will do it.

Mandukya Karika Lecture 103 on 17-May-2023

2023-06-13T18:12:13Z

Marrivamsi: Created page with "== Summery == The 12th mantra of the 3rd chapter of the Mandukya Upanishad is explained by Gaudapada in his Karikas. Gaudapada is an extreme Advaitist, emphasizing non-duality. He states that there is only one reality, Brahman, which is unchanging and eternal. However, it is difficult for us to understand this conceptually. Gaudapada argues that birth, growth, and death are all products of the mind, and our thoughts are our only reality. He uses various illustrations, su..."

== Summery ==
The 12th mantra of the 3rd chapter of the Mandukya Upanishad is explained by Gaudapada in his Karikas. Gaudapada is an extreme Advaitist, emphasizing non-duality. He states that there is only one reality, Brahman, which is unchanging and eternal. However, it is difficult for us to understand this conceptually. Gaudapada argues that birth, growth, and death are all products of the mind, and our thoughts are our only reality. He uses various illustrations, such as the example of dream and the distinction between pure space and pot-space, to support his arguments. While Indian philosophers give secondary importance to reasoning, they rely on scriptural teachings to understand the truth. Advaita philosophy, including Gaudapada's teachings, is not without its flaws, but it is considered the best philosophy for solving worldly and spiritual problems. Gaudapada addresses the question of how Brahman, which is all-knowing, can become entangled in ignorance. He argues that it is not possible and that reasoning alone cannot provide the answer. Ignorance, or avidya, is considered to reside in Brahman itself. Other philosophical schools, such as Ramanujacharya's Vishishtadvaita, try to refute Advaita but fail to provide satisfactory answers. Ultimately, Advaita teaches that we are not really suffering, and by realizing the truth, the effects of ignorance can be eliminated. Although no philosophy is perfect, Advaita philosophy is considered the best for solving various problems. The essence of Gaudapada's teachings is that our experiences and objects are not our true selves. We are the knower, the witness, and everything experienced is ultimately unreal or Mithya.

The scripture praises the identity of the individual soul (Jivatma) and the supreme soul (Paramatma) as non-dual, condemning the belief in their multiplicity. The goal is to realize that there is nothing apart from Brahman, no separate objects or entities. The scriptures repeatedly condemn the perception of differences and promote the view that everything is Brahman. The scriptures teach both duality (Karmakanda) and non-duality (Jnanakanda) to cater to the understanding of different individuals. The initial teaching of duality is for those who are incapable of understanding the abstract concept of non-duality. As one progresses spiritually, the teachings shift towards non-duality. The scriptures use different approaches to suit the capacity of individuals, just like a mother cooks different dishes for her children according to their digestion abilities.

== Full Transcript ==
In our last class we have been discussing about the 12th mantra of the 3rd chapter of the Mandukya Upanishad. The 2nd, 3rd as well as 4th all these are nothing but explanations of Gaudapada for the 12 mantras of the Mandukya Upanishad. These verses are called Karikas. And here, says a person who thinks there is anything besides Brahman, he is to be pitied, he is to be re-educated. There is only one reality. That is Brahman. It is never born, it cannot be born, it will ever remain exactly in the same way. That is the burden of this entire 3rd chapter called ''Advaita Prakarna''.

''Advaita'' means non-duality. And especially Gaudapada was an extreme ''Advaitist''. There are mild ''Advaitists.'' For example, we have got Sridharaswamy, we have got Madhusudana Saraswati. These are mild ''Advaitins''. Shankaracharya etc., these are called middle class ''Advaitins''. Why? They don't go to the harshest expression of ''Advaita''. Not that they do not know. They know it, but they adopt a softer view. But Gaudapada is the one who doesn't compromise at all. And he tells, nothing is born. And that is the truth also actually. But for us to understand, it will be difficult. So, what is the problem? Problem is the scriptures. Like a mother has to feed a baby in a mild way, a little grown-up child in another way, a fully grown-up child, what Sri Ramakrishna calls, with all spicy, what is called pulao, all made up of the curry of fish. It is very hard to digest. But ultimately ''Advaita'' means there cannot be birth, there cannot be anything else. But it is appearing. So, our question is very interesting question. How did this all-knowing ''Brahman'' can ever entangle himself? Frankly, the answer is, no it is not possible. So, some foolish ''Advaitins'' try to convince all of us that it is through reasoning one can do it. No, we can never do anything through reasoning. But we find ourselves in this position. How did ''Brahma'' become caught? Nobody knows and why, how, but we are all suffering. Can we get out of suffering? Yes. How? By knowing that we are not really suffering. How? By getting the knowledge that all the while we are thinking there is a snake. As soon as light comes, not only we know the truth, but the effects of the truth will completely eliminate, destroy the effects of ''ajnana''. And that is good enough for us. We don't need to go further deep into these hair-splitting arguments.

But one thing is very common among all the Indian philosophers. They give secondary importance to reasoning, but primary importance is to the scriptural teaching which is to be accepted on its face value without any compromise. But to understand them properly we have to take the help of logic or reasoning. So, keeping this in mind we have been seeing that according to Gaudapada ''Brahman'' has never become what we call born, not growth, not ''sadhana'', not ''siddhi'', nothing of these things. And what are all those things? They are play of the mind, thoughts in our mind. And our thoughts are our only reality. So, if a person is dreaming that he is sleeping in his room and very safe after nice food, and there is no danger. But he had imagined himself, maybe because he read a nightmarish book, that he was surrounded and he was taken by force to a dungeon, dumped there, and being beaten black and blue. And days and days together he is like that. But so long as we are dreaming it seems to be real. When we wake up, we laugh. The problem is with our imagination. Gaudapada says birth is an imagination, growth is an imagination, and ''laya'', death is also an imagination. For that he tries to explain to us with various illustrations. One illustration is ''Ghatakasha'' and ''Mahakasha''. As if with the birth of the pot, ''Ghatakasha'' is born. But really speaking ''Ghata'' is born, pot is born, not pot-space. In fact, nothing can divide space, because emptiness can never be divided. Now he is supporting his arguments, not only with logic, all the examples of dream, examples of pure space and pot-space are all through reasoning, rationality. But the main thrust is do the scriptures tell us? Yes, they do tell us. ''Advaita'' is great, but the opponent comes up. You are saying they teach the Upanishads, especially the Upanishads. That is part of the Vedas. Why do I call it part of the Vedas? Because Vedas are divided into two parts, ''Karmakanda'' and ''Jnanakanda''. The old ''Karmakanda'' is nothing but emphasizing differences. This is ''Bhuloka'', there is a ''Svargalok''a, there is a ''Narakaloka'', hell and heaven and earth. So, if I want to go to heaven, I have to do certain things. So, if I want to go to ''Brahmaloka'' I have to worship ''Brahman''. Is ''Brahman'' one with me? No, no. ''Brahman'' is not one with you, but ''Brahman'' is far superior to you. If you want to go to ''Brahmaloka'', then you have to worship that particular deity called ''Brahma'' and for that you have to do ''Upasana'', meditation, contemplation. So, there is a difference. The old ''Karmakanda'' is nothing but difference that I am a human being. Gods are different, Goddesses are different, denizens of this ''Svargaloka'' are different and I want to go there, and I will enjoy. Then I have to come back. So, there is no permanency in any one of the ''Lokas.'' So, I will ever remain separate. Everything is separate. This is our common experience. But ''Advaita'' tells us that this is because of ignorance. One is ''Avarana Shakti'', another is ''Vikshepa Shakti''. We have to get rid of them through spiritual practice. First get rid of ''Vikshepa Shakti'' and then deal with the ''Avarana Shakti''. One is called ''Avidya'', another is called ''Tulavidya.'' ''Tulavidya'' is ''Avarana Shakti'' and this ''Vikshepa Shakti'' is what is called our ''Avidya Shakti''. So first get rid of the surface problem, visible problem. Then go to the cause of that visible problem which is called ''Avarana Shakti''. This is how the ''sadhana'' proceeds. But Gaudapada simply brushes the whole thing aside and he denies the whole thing. There is no ''sadhya'', a goal to be reached. There is no what is called ''Purushartha''. The truth is exactly the same. But even the greatest ''Advaitins'', this is a side point, even ''Advaita'' philosophy is not a fool proof philosophy. It has a lot of holes. That is why I call it holy philosophy. It is the best philosophy. But philosophy is only the expression of our intellect. Intellect is limited. Therefore, our understanding will be limited. Therefore, our formulation will also be limited only. Are there defects in ''Advaita''? Yes. Will there be a philosophy without defects? No. Every philosophy has got some defects. So, what is the defect of ''Advaita'' philosophy? They can never explain. They try to not explain but explain away saying that ''Brahman'' cannot entertain ''Avidya'' or ''Maya''. This is, as I said, a side talk to make our understanding more enjoyable. So, we are in this condition. So, are we in ignorance or not? Yes, we are in ignorance. And what are you saying? You are not in ignorance. Your thousand billion times saying that I am not in ignorance is simply stupid, useless. Because if a pin pricks me, I am experiencing the pain. I am listening to your talks and yet you go on emphasizing. What is your answer? So why am I suffering? Because of ignorance. What is ignorance? Opposite of knowledge. What is ''Brahman''? Pure knowledge. Wherefrom the second thing called non-knowledge, wrong knowledge, ignorance, partial knowledge, mistaken knowledge, wherefrom it has come? Oh, does it reside in ''Brahman?'' And they have to admit that ''Ajnana'', ignorance, resides only in ''Brahman''. What is the argument? Argument is, suppose there is a table in front of us and you ask the table, hey table, are you knowledgeable thing or are you an ignorant? It cannot answer. Why? Because it doesn't have consciousness. Only a conscious being can tell whether I am knowledgeable or ignorant. So, before creation, who was there? Only ''Brahman''. Was ''Brahman'' consciousness or something else? Pure consciousness, pure ''chit''. So, wherefrom this has come? Wherefrom ''Jeevatma'' thinks? Why does ''Jeevatma'' think I am limited? I am consciousness but limited consciousness. I am limited by body and mind. I am a ''Jeevatma''. I am ''Alpagnya'', little knower. I am ''Alpashaktimaan''. My power is very limited. I continuously experience both happiness and unhappiness. All because of what? Because of my ignorance that I am ''Brahman''. Right? That is what you are teaching. So, you are telling me I am ''Brahman''. ''Brahman'' means complete knowledge. But here I am suffering from ignorance thinking that I am not ''Brahman.'' So where is the residence? What is the location of this ''Ajnana''? Because after creation we are all the locations. I have ignorance. You have ignorance. But before creation where was this ignorance? They have to admit it is in ''Brahman''. So, you are saying that ''Brahman'' is ''Advaita''. It cannot be justified. No, no, no. It is only a notion. You may say thousand times it is a notion. Before creation, ''Brahman'' is ''Brahman''. And why should he think I want to think I am not ''Brahman''. I want to suffer. Why does ''Brahman'' want to suffer? Why does ''Brahman'' search for things so that he can be happy? He is already happy.

So Ramanujacharya, very beginning of his Sri Bhashya. Sri Bhashya means commentary on Brahma Sutras. Ramanujacharya's commentary on Brahma Sutras is called Sri Bhashya. Shankaracharya's Bhashya is simply called Bhashya. ''Advaitins'' follow, Shankaracharya's Bhashya. And so why are we ignorant? And that is where Shankaracharya in one and a half page, not much actually, refutes that in any way this whole world is ''Adhyasa'', superimposition. And who is the superimposer? ''Maya''. Who is the superimposed? ''Jeeva''. So, my dear sir, before creation there was no superimposer, superimposed. In between, where from it has come? That is to say, logic tells us if something is created out of gold, suddenly silver cannot come from somewhere and insert itself in the ornaments. If silver was absent, it cannot come. If silver is present it cannot be pure gold. If ignorance is there, if ignorance were absent, ''Advaita'' is ''Advaita''. If ignorance or ''avidya'' is present, it will be ''Dvaita''. One is consciousness, another is ignorance. One is knowledge, another is ignorance. As I said, they try to refute it, but they miserably fail to refute it. Ramajunacharya, every right, and he was a very sharp intellect, he refutes them. And somebody has to answer that one. Madhusudhana Saraswati and others try to answer, but it is all completely useless answer. They cannot tackle the original question. What is the point? Why am I talking all these things? It is nothing to do with Mandukya Upanishad, but just to sharpen our intellect, simply without background you cannot enjoy all these things. Coming back to our subject now. What is the essence of what I said? That ''Advaita'' is not a perfect philosophy. Was ''Visishta Advaita'' perfect? No. Was ''Dvaita'' perfect? No. No philosophy is perfect. No intellectual formulation can ever be perfect. ''Shruti'' is perfect, because it is ''apaurushaya'', not human made. Anything human made will be imperfect. But the best philosophy we have, that which can solve the problems of the world, whether secular or spiritual, only the ''Advaita'' philosophy completely. And ''Advaita'' philosophy doesn't have any quarrel with any other philosophy. This is just, as I said, a side talk. Now in the twelfth mantra, twelfth Karika rather, the Gaudapada, first earlier he had given ''Ghatakasha Mahakasha'', and in the second chapter, called ''Vaithatya Prakarna'' the main emphasis is a dream. That is, whatever we experience, just briefly to recollect, whatever I experience is not me. And I always experience something, not only as the main object, but main object coloured or covered up with so many qualities, small, big, red, white, etc. And this is what allows us to distinguish one object from the other object. And whatever qualities belong to any perceived object, belong to that object, nothing to do with me. I see the body, body is born, body grows, body is beautiful, body is ugly, body is healthy, body is unhealthy, body is talented, body is not talented, they all belong to the body, it has nothing to do with me. If somebody can sing well, it has nothing to do with the ''Atman'' at all. That is the second point. Third point is, whatever I experience is ''Jada,'' because only consciousness can experience. I am the experiencer and whatever I experience is called an object. And every object is ''Jada'', every object is concrete, every object is external, every object is ever-changing, every object depends upon the perceiver for its very existence and cognition. Therefore, I cannot be a ''Vastu'', I cannot be the ''Drishya'', I am the ''Drik'', I cannot be the Known, I am the Knower, I cannot be the Witnessed, I am the Witness. This is the burden of the entire ''Vaithatya Prakarana''. We are experiencing the waking, and the dream, and the deep sleep, since they are all experienced, along with all their objects, they are all ''Mithya''. An object is called ''Mithya'', because whatever depends upon others for its very existence. If I do not cognize something it doesn't exist for me. Somebody must cognize either in the past or present or future. If anybody tells us that there is an object, did anybody see it? No. Did anybody hear of it? No. Did anybody ever experience it? No. Such a thing cannot be accepted as existence, existing. And therefore, anything that is existing must be experienced. And the experience is totally different from the experience. This is common sense. I see a car, I am not the car. I see a dog, I am not a dog. I see a donkey, I am not a donkey. But we become donkeys when I see my body, then I say, I am the body. I don't say, when I see a donkey, I am the donkey. But when I see, I experience, see means experience the body, I become deluded, I am the body. But sometimes common sense comes out, even in English language. This is my hand. This is my head. My head is throbbing, paining. So, my means other than me. And you say, I am having headache. And this is the greatest headache for all of us to think that what we are experiencing is us. Extend it to the mind. The mind has the thoughts, I am happy, I am unhappy, this is desirable, this is not desirable. But when it comes to our experience, whatever I am experiencing must be separate from me. So, I cannot be the mind. But we get deluded because of what is called ''Nidra Shakti'' or ''Avidya Shakti''. If it is collective ignorance, it is called ''Maya'' or it is called ''Moola Vidya''. If it is experienced individually, it is called ''Tola Vidya''. It is called ''Avidya'', simply. ''Maya'' is collective aspect. ''Avidya'' is individual aspect. ''Moola'' is collective aspect. ''Tola'' is individual aspect of it. So, this is the burden of the entire second chapter is the whole universe. That means all the three states every ''Jeeva'' experiences in the form of waking, dream and dreamless, they are all completely false because I am experiencing them. And the experiencer can never become the experienced. That is the burden. In the third chapter, ''Advaita Prakarana'', he wants to prove everything is ''Advaita''. For that he gives some examples and he gives the same examples earlier too. But here what is important is that he wants to take the help of the scriptures. And once we understand it is very easy for us to proceed further.

In this 12th mantra he gives the example of Madhu Kanda. Now it is from an Upanishad called Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is divided into six main chapters. And every chapter has got several sections. And every section is called a ''Brahmana''. Nothing to do with a born ''Brahmana'' or anything. Here a section is called ''Brahmana''. And the fifth section of the second chapter of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is called Madhu ''Brahmana''. And this is a marvellous ''Brahmana''. I am going to tell you the essence because it is not difficult. The whole universe is divided in different ways into two pairs. What is it? One is the experiencer another is the experienced. One is the ''Drik'', another is ''Drishya''. And we just now talked about it with regard to the ''Vaitatya Prakarana''. But what is reality? The whole universe is divided into two, ''Adhyatma'' and ''Adhidaivika''. What is it? Supposing I have what is called the eye. My eye, the ''Indriya'', that can see. It has the power to see only because there is an ''Adhishtatru Devata'', there is a presiding, ruling deity called ''Surya Deva''. ''Surya Deva'' is the power for the collective eye power to see. Whether it is a dog, whether it is a lion, tiger, a rat or anything, their power to see individually is called ''Chakshu'' and universally it is called ''Surya Deva''. Both are dependent. If I have no eyes, ''Surya'' is useless. If I have eyes, but ''Surya'' is not there, equally useless. So, ''Surya'' depends upon me, and I depend upon ''Surya''. Similarly, ''Surya'' is only one example. So, I want to hear. I have got ear. Ear is an instrument for hearing. And this instrument called hearing, this will be useless without the ''Adhishtatru Devata'' called ''Akasha''. ''Akasha'' will be useless if I am deaf. And if ''Akasha'' is not there, which is never the case, Akasha is not there, I have the ear. That is also equally useless. Like if the teacher is not there, the title student is useless. If the student is not there, the word teacher, the title teacher is completely useless. So, if the ''Sishya'' is not there, ''Guru'' is useless. If the ''Guru'' is not there ''Sishya'' is useless. So, this ''Guru-Sishya'', ''Guru'' depends upon the ''Sishya'' and ''Sishya'' depends upon the ''Guru''. Surya depends upon my eye. My eye depends upon the Surya. Each are related. If one is absent, both will be functionless. That is why, in a beautiful language, the whole universe is nothing but the experiencer and the experienced, the giver and those who use what is given. This is a ''Jeevatma'' is dependent upon ''Paramatma''. ''Paramatma'' is dependent upon the ''Jeevatma''. It is useless for the ''Jeevatma''. If there is no ''Paramatma'', ''Jeevatma'' will not be ''Jeevatma''. If ''Jeevatma'' is not there ''Paramatma'' also will not be there. You have to understand this very subtle concept. So, there is an invariable, inescapable, unbreakable relationship. What is that relationship? That relationship is interdependence. That interdependence is called ''Madhu''. Simple example, without a baby a mother is a woman. She is not a mother. Without mother, the baby cannot survive.

So, mother loves the baby. So, for the baby, mother is the ''Madhu'', honey. Honey means what? That which is the only, without which one cannot exist. That is called ''Madhu''. So, if there is an object and I don't have eyes, then the ''Surya Deva'' is completely useless. I gave that example. Apply it to all the other five sense organs also. So, all the ''Panchabhutas'' are the ''Adishtatra Devatas'' and all the five sense organs are the ''Indriyas''. These ''Indriyas'' individually depend upon the ''Adishtana Devatas'', ''Adi Daivika Devatas''. They are called ''Adi Daivika''. We are called ''Adhyatma''. ''Adhyatma'' and ''Adi Daivika'', they are there. So Gaudapada tells, ''Dvaiyoho Dvaiyoho Madhu Jnane''. That is between these pairs are there. How many pairs? Infinite number of pairs, but all of them are categorized. I will give an example very soon. ''Dvaiyoho Dvaiyoho'' means between two pairs. ''Madhu Jnane''. What is ''Madhu Jnane''? Without the other, I cannot exist. Without wife, a man is not a husband. Without husband, a woman is not a wife. As I just now gave, any number of examples, without the audience a person is not a singer or teacher or anything. So, there are no singers but there are listeners. It is useless. There are listeners but no speakers or singers. That is also useless. So, apply it to every type of ''Indriya Jnana''. This is a marvellous thing that we have to understand. But who is it that sustains both? Well, ''Parambrahma Prakasitam''. So, are you a Jeevatma? Yes. How do you exist as ''Jeevatma''? Because of the ''Parambrahma''. And here is ''Paramatma, Ishwara''? Yes. Can ''Ishwara'' exist without ''Parambrahma''? No. Only a collection of ''Jeevatmas'' is called ''Ishwara''. If there is no ''Ishwara'', there is no individual soul. If there is no individual soul, ''Ishwara'' will disappear. So ''Ishwara'' depends upon the individual soul. And individual soul depends upon the ''Ishwara''. In this world everything is dependent upon the other one. This is why the whole universe is called interdependent universe. Dependent means it cannot even exist without the other. So without ''Sat,'' without ''Chit'', without ''Ananda'', nothing can exist. Here all, anything that is existing must have ''Chit'' part of it and ''Ananda'' part of it. Even sometimes manifest, sometimes not manifest. Even a human being, when he is sleeping, then his existence is known by all. But his knowledge is not gauged, fathomed by anybody. Nor his ''Ananda'' which he is experiencing in that state, cannot be also experienced. It is a divine mystery. Every day we see, when you find somebody else deeply asleep, you cannot know whether he is experiencing happiness or not. Only when he gets up and says, I am happy, then you have to believe that he was really happy. This is the gist. ''Madhukanda'', everything is dependent upon everything else and one part cannot exist without the other part. Therefore, if one has to exist, that thing which makes it possible to exist becomes the most dearly loved thing in the world and that is why we are dependent upon the body and the body is dependent upon us. We are dependent upon the mind. Mind is dependent upon us. If you understood the essence of what I said, the whole universe is divided into pairs. Every pair is dependent upon the other. Pair means husband and wife, teacher and student, ''guru'' and ''sishya'', friend and enemy. These are called pairs. ''Mata, Pita'', etc. This is a marvellous something. So, this is the teaching. Gaudapada wants to give, quoting from the Madhu ''Brahmana'', that is the fifth section of the second chapter of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. Then, just like ''Ghatakasha'' and ''Mahakasha,'' he wants to reinforce with another example in the second line. ''pṛthivyāmudare caiva yathākāśaḥ prakāśitaḥ''

So, you see, various stomachs, a child's stomach, a grown-up person's stomach, a diseased person's stomach, and a dog's stomach, a cow's stomach. They are all of different proportions, different capacities. The wolf's capacity to digest can never be equalled by anybody in this world and that is why it just tears and swallows because of the terrible hunger. And it can digest even bones. Hyena can even digest the very bones very quickly. It's all because there is some acid there. I think it is called hydrochloric acid. It just dissolves everything. The moment the whole physical body becomes dissolved, and more of that acid, more hunger will be there. That is why some people can eat more and digest. Some people can hardly eat and digest. That is why when you see Bhima Sena, it is called ''Rukodaraha''. That is the stomach of a wolf. How it gulps down and enjoys it, etc.

So, what is the point? So, for filling the stomach with food, there must be space. It must be empty space. And how much space each stomach can contain differs. An ant's stomach and an elephant's stomach is not exactly the same. What is the point? The point is the ''Akasha'' or the space within all, just like ''Ghatakasha'' and ''Mahakasha'', small space, big space. That is foolishness on our part. Small stomach, big stomach. So small space, big space. There is no difference in the space. Difference is only in the container, not what is contained. This is a beautiful idea. Our body is a container. Mind is a container. ''Atman'' is the contained. There is no difference between the ''Atman'' within my container and within your container. That is why Kabir Das says, ''Ghata Ghata Rama Ramayya''. ''Rama'' is sporting in every. ''Patu Kavachana Matha Bol''. Do not utter and hurt Rama because within everybody that Rama alone is there. This is popularly known as ''Jeevatma''. Every ''Jeevatma'' is none other than ''Paramatma''. He is not ''Jeevatma'' because with reference to the body-mind, we call that pure consciousness as ''Jeevatma''. But once you remove body-mind, then everything is ''Paramatma''. This is the meaning. The descriptions by pairs, as that of the ''Akasha'', which is in the earth, is also in the stomach, though referred to separately, applies equally to the Supreme ''Brahman'' described in the Madhu ''Brahmana'' as being both ''Adhyatma'' and ''Adhidaiva''.

So, earlier also we have seen the microcosm and the macrocosm are one and the same. Swamiji had explained this Madhu ''Kanda'' in his ''Jnana Yoga'' lectures. Especially, I think, two or three lectures are there. The microcosm and the macrocosm are built on the same plan. There is absolutely no difference between the microcosm and the macrocosm. That perception of difference is because of this, what is called ''Maya'' or ''Avidya''. So, in this twelfth verse, Gaudapada is taking a quotation. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, as I told, six chapters. Each chapter has several sections, and each section is called ''Brahmana''. So, in the second chapter, the fifth section is called Madhu ''Brahmana''. In this Madhu ''Brahmana'', the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad divides the whole world into several pairs belonging to individual planes as microcosm and their ''Adhishtatru Devata'', ruling deity, is the corresponding microcosm.

So, this fifth section called Madhu ''Brahmanam'' has nineteen mantras and the purport of all these nineteen mantras is the whole creation is divided into two pairs. One cannot exist without the other. All of them ultimately is the manifestation of that Supreme ''Brahman''. I'll give you just a small sample.

''iyam pṛthivī sarveṣāṁ bhūtānām madhu, asyai pṛthivyai sarvāṇi bhūtāni madhu; yaś cāyam asyām pṛthivyāṁ tejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣaḥ, yas cāyam adhyātmaṁ śārīras tejomayo'mṛtamayaḥ puruṣaḥ, ayam eva sa yo'yam ātmā, idam amṛtam, idam brahma, idaṁ sarvam.''

This earth is like honey to all beings. Why, honey comes from where? From flowers. Flowers come from where? From plants. Plants come from where? From the earth. So, everybody, honey means food. So, this earth is food and without food they cannot survive. So, earth is like mom for the baby. We are all babies. We are sustained by the milk of the mother and that is called ''Bhumata''. And all beings are honey because like him. For a mother, mother is no mother. Mother wants to feed. If mother cannot feed, who will suffer more? The mother suffers more. So, for a mother her baby's life is even more precious than her own individual life. So, ''Bhumata'', she loves every creature in this world. She provides for every creature in this world. Every creature loves mother. That means that which makes its existence, its knowledge, its ''ananda'' possible. That is called mother. That is called earth in this example. But there is one shining immortal being who is within this earth. He is shining. He is immortal. He is appearing as a corporeal being in the body. But all these are but this self. And when a person attains this self-knowledge, that is the only means of immortality. This underlying unit is ''Brahman''. This knowledge of ''Brahman'' is the only means of becoming all. ''Ima'', then ''Imaapaha''. That is an example. So, ''Imaapaha'' is water. ''Sarveshvam Bhutan''. Without water we cannot survive. I am ''Vayu''. Without this ''Pranavayu'' nobody can survive. No ''jeeva'' can survive. ''Purushaha Ayam Eva''. And that conscious being is only this ''Brahman'' in the form of ''Jeevatma''. ''Ayam Aditya'', the sun that we see. ''Sarveshvam Bhutan''. Madhu is the most... You don't see the sun for 2-3 days your whole life will become bitter. So, if you don't have, create an artificial sun. ''Imaadishaha'', if you don't have the space to run about, then the whole life becomes bitter poison. And if we don't see, if there is only sun whole 24 hours, you will be burnt to death. There must be ''Chandra'' who will cool the whole body and makes the mind spontaneously become cheerful. It is because the ''Chandra'' is the ruling deity of the mind. I am ''Chandraha''. I am ''Vidyut''. There must be lightening because lightening comes usually when it brings water. And I am ''Stanayatnohu''. When you see, after summer season or within summer season, ''Stanayatnohu''. ''Stana'' means breast. ''Stanayatnohu'' means one who gives what comes out of the breast for the baby. What is it? Here it is called the water-bearing clouds. Water is ''Jeeva''. Without water we cannot survive. ''Stanayatnohu''. And I am ''Akasha'', space. All the ''Pancha Bhutas'' and their products are referred here. They are all ''Madhu'' for all of us. And when we talk of this, all the sun, the moon, the lightening, the fire, etc., it is called the macrocosm. When we are talking, I am this human being, you are that human being, that is called the individual. I depend upon all these and all these ''Devatas'', all of us put together are all these ''Devatas''. So, as I said, the individual expression of the sun is the eye, within each one of us. And collective eyes, everywhere, it is called the sun. So, we are dependent upon it, upon each other, but through both of us, who is that manifesting? ''Parabrahman'' only. And those who have got this knowledge that the ''Jeevatma'' and ''Paramatma'' are one and the same, he alone will become immortal.

And that is being expressed in the next Karika, 13th Karika.

''jīvātmanorananyatvamabhedena praśasyate''

''nānātvaṃ nindyate yacca tadevaṃ hi samañjasam''

Since the identity of the ''Jeevatma'' and the ''Paramatma'' has been praised and the multiplicity, that is ''Jivatma Paramatma'' are separate is severely condemned in the scriptures. Non-duality alone is the rational and that is the correct view. And that is our goal how to know that there is nobody else excepting ''Brahman'', no second object, not even a single object that is called ''Brahman''. And in this 13th, ''Jivatmanoho Ananyatvam'' ''Jiva'' means individual soul, ''Atma'' means ''Parabrahman'', ''Ananyatvam'', they are separate from each other. ''Abhedena Prashasyate'' The scriptures are praising again and again as how ''Abhedena'', they are not separate. So that is why Hanuman says when we are in the lowest state of ''sadhana''

''Deha buddhyato tasoham Jiva buddhyato padam shakaha''

''Atma buddhyato tmevaham Iti me nishchitamatihe''

So, but the ultimate truth is everything is ''Brahman''. There is no ''Jeevatma,'' there is even not even ''Ishwara'' or ''Paramatma,'' everything is only that one

''nandvayal ekam advaita'' ''akshara purusha shashvataha''

''ajo nitya shashvatoyam purano nahanyate'' hanyamane sharire

and ''nanatvam nindyate eccha'' and wherever opportunity comes these scriptures, they go on condemning. We will come to that example where a person sees difference between himself and others. That is to be condemned. That is called the effect of ignorance and so it leads only to ''dukkha'' not to ''sukhayata''. That is what Gaudapada says ''Tadevam hi samanjasam'' That alone is the correct view. What is the correct view? There is no difference and wherever there is a difference, the scriptures are condemning it. This is the correct one. So here, ''Jeevatma Paramatma Bheda'' is not there. That is why in Kathopanishad this is there.

''Yadeveha tad amutra Yad amutra tad an iha''

''Prutyoho samrutyoho apnoti Yaiha naneva pashyati''

''Yad eva iha, w''hatever is here, ''tad amutra, t''hat alone is there. ''Yad amutra, w''hatever is there, ''tad anu iha, t''hat alone is here. But if somebody sees differentiation, maniness, ''Naneva iha. Iha'' means through this body-mind because of ignorance, ''nana eva pashyati,'' everything is separate from everything else. What happens to him? ''Saha'', that person ''Prutyoho smrutyoho apnoti, h''e will die, he will be reborn. Again, he will die until he gets the knowledge that everything is ''Brahman''. I do not exist. You do not exist. Everything is nothing but ''Brahman''. And in the ''Shanti Mantra'' of the Brihadaranyaka

''Pournamadaha pournamidam Pournat pournamudachyate''

''Pournasya pournamadaya Pournameva vasishyate''

I will take only the first two. ''Pournamadaha,'' whatever is there is infinite. Pournamadaha, whatever we see as this world as me and you, that is also infinite. So, what I see here as these different individuals is nothing but infinite. I am unable to see this infinity because of ignorance. But in infinity, that is 50% of the infinity. This is another 50%. But some people are there. That is 99% infinite. This is 1% infinite. And this is how they do it. ''Atyatishta Dasha Amulam'' is totally wrong. Infinite cannot be multiplied, divided, subtracted or added. So 0 plus 0, 0 minus 0, 0 into 0, 0 divided by 0 is only 1.

Everywhere these ''Mahavakyas'' are there.

''Prajnanam Brahma, Ayamatma Brahma, Tattvamasi, Aham Brahmasmi, Sarvam Kalvitam Brahma.''

Therefore, wherever you see a difference because of ignorance, the truth is everything is one and the same.

And in the Karika 14,

''jīvātmanoḥ pṛthaktvaṃ yat prāgutpatteḥ prakīrtitam''

''bhaviṣyadvṛtyā gauṇaṃ tanmukhyatvaṃ hi na yujyate''

So, what does it mean? The separateness of the ''Jeeva'' and the ''Atman'' which has been declared in the earlier ritualistic portions of the ''Vedas'' before the texts of the Upanishad dealing with the creation of the universe can only be figurative because this portion is a description anticipating what is to follow. When we take the example of mathematics, we can understand it better. So, there is a beautiful declaration by advanced or what is called abstract mathematicians. What do ordinary people say? Ordinary mathematics, whether it is B.Sc. mathematics, M.Sc. mathematics, two infinite lines can never meet. Two infinite lines can never meet. But the same mathematicians say that in infinity, two infinite lines definitely may come together. It is impossible for us to conceive two parallel lines can ever meet. Yes, they can meet in infinity. They do meet in infinity and their mathematical formulations have been derived from there.

What is the point? I will deal with it in my next class. What is important here is that in the scriptures, our Vedas have been divided into two portions. First is non-Upanishadic, called ''Karmakanda''. Second is ''Jnanakanda'', means Upanishadic portions. In the ''Karmakanda'' it is nothing, but everything is multiplication, everything is manyness, everything is different from everything else and that has been praised, that has been encouraged and then you do this, you go to ''Indra Loka'', you enjoy that, you do this, you go to ''Brahma Loka'' and you enjoy that and you will come back after some time. The whole ritualistic portion is possible only because of what is called duality, division. How it is, I will talk in my next class. But why do the scriptures, do they teach contradictory things? First, they say everything is different. Later on they deny they reject the same thing what they taught and say that there is no difference. Everything is but ''Ekam Sat''. The question comes, the objector raises that question, and the answer is for the children who are incapable of understanding. Yes, yes, yes, everything is different, your experience is right. But for those who understand, no, no, no, there is nothing called separate, everything is completely different. That is a wrong notion. Everything is one and that one is called ''Brahman''. Excepting ''Brahman'', nothing exists. That is why it is called ''Jnanakandam''. But is there any reason? Yes, the reason is for the child to grow this separation is very necessary. The same child, when he grows up, capable of understanding abstract things. Upanishads are abstract things. ''Advaita'' is abstract. Then the same young person is taught now ''Advaita''. That was only to make you properly fitted to understand this. Now you have become a ''Yogi Adhikari''. I will teach you pure ''Advaitam''. There is no contradiction. It is, as Ramakrishna says, same mother cooks same curry in different ways to suit the different digestive capacities of children. With this, I will stop now.

Mandukya Karika Lecture 104 on 24-May-2023

2023-06-13T18:00:08Z

Marrivamsi: Created page with "== Summery == The 14th and 15th karikas (verses) from the 3rd Prakaranam (section) of the Mandukya Karikas deal with the topic of creation and the relationship between the individual soul (jiva) and the ultimate reality (paramatma or Brahman). In these verses, Gaudapada, the author of the Mandukya Karikas, presents the objection raised by a purvapakshi (opponent) who argues that the Upanishads themselves talk about the creation of the universe and the individual soul ar..."

== Summery ==
The 14th and 15th karikas (verses) from the 3rd Prakaranam (section) of the Mandukya Karikas deal with the topic of creation and the relationship between the individual soul (jiva) and the ultimate reality (paramatma or Brahman).

In these verses, Gaudapada, the author of the Mandukya Karikas, presents the objection raised by a purvapakshi (opponent) who argues that the Upanishads themselves talk about the creation of the universe and the individual soul arising from Brahman. The opponent cites examples from various Upanishads such as the Chandogya Upanishad and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad to support their argument.

Gaudapada responds by explaining that these statements about creation are meant to be taken in a provisional sense and are not the ultimate truth. He suggests that they are intended for those who are not capable of understanding the highest truth of non-dualism (Advaita). Gaudapada likens these teachings to the initial stages of teaching a child, where concrete examples and stories are used to convey concepts.

Gaudapada argues that the ultimate teaching of the Upanishads is the identity of the individual soul and Brahman, expressed through statements like "Tattvam Asi" (That thou art) and "Aham Brahmasmi" (I am Brahman). He states that the teachings about creation are secondary and should not be taken as the main teaching. Gaudapada asserts that the multiplicity and differences observed in the world are illusory, and the ultimate reality is the non-dual Brahman.

The verses you have quoted are Gaudapada's response to the objection raised by the opponent, highlighting that the statements about creation in the Upanishads are only provisional teachings and not the final truth of Advaita Vedanta. Gaudapada uses analogies like clay and pots, or rope and snake, to illustrate the illusory nature of the perceived duality and multiplicity in the world.

It's worth noting that the Mandukya Karikas, written by Gaudapada, are a commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, which is one of the principal Upanishads associated with the Atharvaveda. Gaudapada's Karikas are highly regarded in the Advaita Vedanta tradition and have had a significant influence on the development of non-dual philosophy in India.

Gaudapada divides all philosophies into two categories: Advaita and Dvaita. Advaita refers to those who follow Jnana Yoga and specifically Advaita Siddhanta, considering it superior. Dvaita encompasses those who follow Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, and Raja Yoga. Gaudapada emphasizes that the Dvaitins, who hold different beliefs and do not accept Advaita Vedanta, are deeply embedded in their own convictions. They often quarrel and contradict each other, thinking their path is the only way. In contrast, Advaitins, like Gaudapada, find no conflict with others because they understand that ultimately Advaita is the only truth. Gaudapada highlights the influence of Maya, represented by the three Gunas, as the cause of these differentiations and misunderstandings. Maya makes individuals perceive things differently, leading to disagreements. Gaudapada asserts that the immortal and changeless Brahman appears to undergo modifications only due to Maya, and if these modifications were real, the immortal Brahman would become mortal.

== Full Transcript ==
We are studying the 3rd ''Prakaranam, Advaita Prakaranam'' of the Mandukya Karikas. We are on to the 14th Karika. In our last class we have been discussing that one.

''jīvātmanoḥ pṛthaktvaṃ yat prāgutpatteḥ prakīrtitam''

''bhaviṣyadvṛtyā gauṇaṃ tanmukhyatvaṃ hi na yujyate''

So, when Gaudapada is telling that everything, nothing is born, no ''Jeeva'' is born, no world is born, ''Paramatma'' cannot be born, is not born, will not be born. But then the objector, there is a ''Purvapakshi'', that is we ourselves. What are you talking about? In the Chandogya, in the Brihadaranyaka, in the Taittiriya, we have plenty of statements from the Upanishads themselves.

For example, ''Atma akasha sambhutaha, akasha dvayoh, vayor agni, agne raapaha, atya prithivi, prithivya moshadayaha.''

This is only one. I will give you also in course of time some more quotations raised by Shankaracharya himself. Now when the Upanishads themselves are talking about that ''Jeeva Atma'', this entire universe is born out of ''Paramatma'', here you come and then you tell us that no, it is never born. Is it possible? No, it is not possible. Then why are you issuing such statements? So let us look at this ''Jeeva Atmanoho Prithatvam''. That is ''Jeeva, Jeevatma, Atmanaha, Paramatmanaha, Paramatma, Prithatvam''. They are separate.

And you see in the Mundaka also, ''dva suparnah sahija sakhaya samanam rkshe parishasva jate''

And we have been studying this in the Shvetashvatara Upanishad. So, plenty of references to creation is there. ''Prithatvam'', separatedness, that is birth of the ''Jeeva'', birth of the world, has been clearly ''prakirtitam''. Where? ''Praak Utpatehe''. ''Praak'' means what? Earlier. Earlier means where? In the very Vedas. Even in the Upanishads, ''Utpatehe.'' Let us not misunderstand it as before creation. No. Here ''Utpatehe Praak'' means earlier portions of the Upanishads and Vedas. They are praising that,

''O Jeevatma'', your father and mother is ''Paramatma''.

You are not Tom, Dick and Harry. Each soul is potentially divine. So, you have come from ''Brahman,'' and you are living in ''Brahman,'' and you go back in ''Brahman''. So, Sri Ramakrishna gives the example of the young one's cheeks of a Homa bird. There is no such bird really. Seemingly there is a bird. It lives up so high in the sky that it lays eggs. And the eggs, of course, in the sky they fall down and many days it takes. And meanwhile the chicks also, they break open the egg and come out. They grow up and while falling down, still there is a long distance between the earth and themselves. And they realize they will be falling down. So, they reverse their travel and fly back to their mother. So many references are there. That is the meaning of, in these very Vedas in the ''Karmakanda'', also in the Upanishads, ''Utpattehe'' means statements regarding creation. They have propped earlier. ''Prakirtitam'', there are so many places they have mentioned. And here, O Gaudapada, you come. Then Gaudapada is answering, no, no, no, you have to understand. You have to understand the whole Veda as a whole, not partially. That is for the children or those who are not capable of understanding. Yes, yes, you have come from God. Like, you know, for the children in the western countries, they say there is a bird, it is called a stork. And it brings all the babies, whether it is elephant babies or babies of human beings, each species, the storks carry in the clouds. Sometimes they take rest on the clouds themselves. Sometimes they slip up. There is a beautiful Walt Disney's movie is there. A small elephant baby falls like that, comes like that into its mother. And it slips down like that. So, these are all for this. And lesser understanding, those who are not capable of understanding. Yes, yes, you are born. And because our practical experience shows, I am separate, you are separate. I see you, you see me, I experience things. We see all the time the ''Srishti'', mother giving birth and sisters giving birth and brothers having children. My dog also has given birth. Everywhere ''Srishti'', it is our experience. How dare you come and say? So Gaudapada's reply is, it is all earlier told. It is not the ultimate truth. It is only for the sake of encouraging you. So that you follow the scriptural teaching and attain purity of the understanding. And slowly when you are ready. Then what was the Upanishad state?

''Tattvam Asi Aham Brahmasmi, Prajnanam Brahma, Ayam Atma Brahma, Sarvam Kalvidam Brahma''

So ''Gaunam, Bhavishyat Vritya'', what is going to be taught in the future as the final teaching, from that viewpoint this is the earlier ''Srishti Vakyas'', are nothing but ''Gaunam''. ''Tat Mukhyatvam Hi Nai Ujjate''. If anybody takes them as the main teaching, as the only teaching and no other teaching, ''Nai Ujjate'', it is illogical, improper. This is the Gaudapada's understanding. So, for that purpose, he is quoting also from the ''Shruti.'' The 14th ''Mantra'' gives us the Gaudapada's Karika.

15th Gaudapada's Karika gives some quotations, especially from the Chandogya Upanishad. The Karika 15 goes like this.

''mṛllohavisphuliṅgādyaiḥ sṛṣṭiryā coditānyathā''

''upāyaḥ so'vatārāya nāsti bhedaḥ kathaṃcana ''

The scriptural statements regarding creation, as illustrated by example of earth, iron, sparks, etc. or otherwise, only serve the purpose of ultimately explaining the unity of ''Jeeva'' and ''Brahman''. Really speaking, multiplicity does not exist in any manner, ''Kathamcana Vedah Nasti.'' But why it was taught? ''Upayah,'' is only a way of slowly training the mind so that it can be ready. ''Avataraaya'' is an introduction only, not the final teaching. So ''Mri'' means earth. ''Loha'' means metal. ''Vishpu Linga'' means sparks from fire. ''Ya Srishti Ya Chodita Anyatha,'' in many places it has been said, mentioned like this. That like all pots come out of the clay, take the nature of the clay, remain as clay, and ultimately when the ''Nama Rupa'' are destroyed, they remain. They never have become clay, but they appear to be something other than clay. We mistake them. The pots themselves do not mistake that we are other than clay. The ornaments do not mistake. So, the furniture doesn't mistake. The ''Vishpu Lingas'', they do not mistake, but we think. I will give a very popular example. Sun's rays are coming. The rays of the sun, that means sun is something and the rays are something different. What is sun's ray? When we look at the sun through our limited capacity of the eye, that very sun appears to be like fire. I will give a beautiful example. So, you are looking at a very bright light. You know, in the villages they use carts, and a cartwheel is there. So, you just put this cartwheel in front of the bulb, covering the bulb. Now you look at the light that is coming as if it is divided into so many parts, and that is what we call ray of light. Ray of light is not ray of light, it is pure light only. For our sake we call it ray of light. So, like that, this is only ''Avataraya'', means an interaction. Sri Ramakrishna also says when a small baby is to be taught, he will actually be given something concrete, an apple, A for apple. So, you present. What is this name? Apple. So how does it start? Begin A. So, then you show a small mat, for example, or B for book. You show a book. This is called book, and it starts with the alphabet B. Like that very concrete objects will be given with different colours, even to teach maths also. But that is only in the beginning stage. Later on, when the baby grows up, he doesn't need all those things. Just as when we are reading a book, we don't need anything else.

So, all these statements about Srishti are exactly like that. And in Sri Ramakrishna's life we get a beautiful vision of him which illustrates this beautifully. Once he had a vision of Mother Saraswati and she was playing her ''Veena''. As she started playing, so many things, the sound itself has become a concrete object, and so many went on creating more and more and more and more. And after some time slowly the play was coming to an end. All those objects which Sri Ramakrishna was saying, are all slowly coming back, merging back into that sound. Finally, when Mother Saraswati stopped, all the creation has gone. So, you can see, it is more than an illustration. You are watching a cinema on the screen and a baby is born. And it is growing up, whole life within two hours, she will say, and then the end comes, a funeral ceremony is held, and then ''Shubham''. So, what happened? The light appeared as the baby. A light started appearing at various stages of the baby and then the dead body is also a modification of the light. Was there any birth of the baby? If you ask any grown-up person, really speaking, there is no growth, there is no change in the light. It is only the projector because of the projection. And what is that projection? Our mind is the projection. That's why we don't ask all these silly questions, whether ''Brahman'' has really become this world, or remained like that. There are people, especially the dualistic ''Vedanta'', ''Dvaita'' and ''Visishtadvaita'', for them ''Srishti'' is real, ''Sthiti'' is real, ''Laya'' is real. But the goal of life is to please the Divine Lord and to become one with Him. We are studying ''Advaita Vedanta''. From its point of view, ''Brahman'' is one, is eternal, He cannot change. Why? Because if ''Srishti'' has come from ''Brahman,'' like milk has become curds. Now milk doesn't remain anymore milk, it becomes curds. The qualities of the milk will be there, but milk will not be changed in any way. That is why it is called ''Vivartavada''. Seemingly, ''Brahman'' has become the world. But these ''Dvaitins'', they don't accept it. They call it ''Parinama Vada'', just as really milk has changed into curds.

Then the opponent is quite intelligent, he puts a question. So, if that is true, then ''Brahman'' is no more ''Brahman.'' He has become the world, like the milk has become the world. The answer is a very clever answer. No, this ''Narayana'', He has got because they don't accept the ''Nirguna, Nirakara'' aspect of ''Brahman'', the only ''Saguna, Sakara''. No, it is not like that. God being God, has a very special power. In that power, without changing, He can become changed. I don't understand. Yes, you don't understand because you are a dull-minded fellow. But we understand it, we the teachers. Anyway, that is called ''Parinama Vada''. But a rope appearing in semi-darkness to the frightened mind as a snake. This is the example. This is called ''Vivarta'', means different form I see. The rope has not become. Only the problem is with me in my mind and because of inadequate light or cataract or whatever fear, I see really. Some people see garland and some people see streak of water. Some people see a stick, a bent stick. So, some people see a crack in the earth. So different people see, and some other people see a snake. But they see the snake okay, but they are not frightened. They are sorrowful. I just lost my pet snake and here is a new one. Without paying anything, I can get it. So, these are all ''Dvaitin's'' views. And ''Advaita'' contradicts them because ''Brahman'' ever remains completely what is called ''Ajo Nityaha Shashvatoyam Purano.'' It is, it never changes. ''Purana'' means ''Pura Api Nava''. However ancient, timeless. Time is changed. It is timelessness. So, this is the meaning.

The scriptural statements regarding creation that we get in so many other Upanishads. As I said in the Shvetashvatara Upanishad which we are discussing also by examples of earth, iron, sparks etc. or otherwise only serve the purpose of ultimately explaining the unity of ''Jeeva'' and ''Brahman''. And that explanation of ''Jeeva'' ''Brahma Ekatpavada'' is also from what is called an ignorant man's point of view. Why? Because ''Jeeva'' is ''Brahman''. So, who is telling? Is ''Nirguna Brahma'' is telling or a person, an enlightened teacher in this world is telling? It is all a play of our mind. Dualistic mind. Dualistic, some people are bound in the dualistic world. A few people are completely enlightened. So, this is for the sake of teaching and for different types of people. But the truth is that ''Naasti Bhedaha Katancana'' there is no difference at all.

So, there are some examples I told you that this is from the Chandogya Upanishad 6th Chapter, section 1, 6. There is a beautiful story of Shwetaketu and this man was proud. He went to his teacher, very intelligent person, because a non-intelligent person rarely becomes proud. So tremendous intelligence is necessary even to feel proud and maintain it. That is important. So, he came back after 12 years. And his father asked him, did your teacher teach you that which is very difficult to be taught? And he said, no, my teacher never taught. Perhaps he did not know. Very arrogant answer. Did you ask? No, he should have taught me. How do I know? So, unlike the modern man, you know, once a father wanted to teach his youthful son about the facts of life. So, the son was very busy playing games. He said, my son, you spare 15 minutes. We want to talk about facts of life. So, the fellow temporarily stopped the PC, turned and said, what do you want to know? So, it is all these people think they know much better. But Shwetaketu was a great man. His father was a Naira Brahman. He started his teaching, ''Tattvam Asi Shwetaketu'', thou art that. But what about all these things? So, he gives examples.

''Yatha Saumya Eke Namrut Pindena Sarvam Runmayam Vignatham''

''Syad Vacharambanam Ikalo Namadheyam Mruthikai Theva Satya''

My dear boy, just as through a single clod of clay, all that is made up of clay would be known for all modifications is but name based upon words and the clay alone is real. Every part is real. So, he gives,

''Yatha Saumya Eke Namrut Pindena Loha Manina''

''Sarvam Lohamayam Vignatham Syad''

So just as though a single piece of gold, all that is made of gold would become known for all modifications is but only name for our ''vyavahara'', transaction, but gold alone is real.

Yatha Saumya Eke Na Nakha Nikkurunta Nena

Sarvam Karshayasam Vignatham Syad

So, there was a piece of metal. Out of that in those days somebody had made a nail cutter. That means what? Even people were using nail cutters in those days. So dear boy, just as through a single nail parer all that is made up of iron would become known. For whatever is made out of iron is nothing but iron and different names and forms. But ''Vacharam Brahm'' means for the sake of transactions only. That is all. That is the truth. So, what is the essence of this 15th mantra? That ''Brahman'' is unchanging. ''Brahman'' has never given birth. It has never become ''Srishti.'' There is no ''Jeeva''. There is no ''Jagat''. ''Jeeva'' is not born. ''Jagat'' is not born. So, the question of ''Jeeva'' after some time awakening and saying I have come from ''Brahman''. I must do ''sadhana.'' I must become ''Brahman'' through ''sadhana,'' and I deviated from ''Brahman''. All this is only a misunderstanding of the truth. ''Brahman'' has never become anything else. Just as in our dream, we dream that we have gone somewhere and upon waking up we don't find we are not returning from somewhere, but we are exactly where we are. These are all thoughts. So, what is the final thing? Everything is a thought. And this is illustrating. Look here all students are not the same. There are what is called the lowest of the intellect, middle type of intellect, higher type of intellect. But as I said, Gaudapada has a knack for confusing all of us with words which we understand in a different way.

So many examples were given. So, ''Dharma'' we understand ''Dharma'' as a way of conduct whereas he means all the living beings. My God, he says like this! ''Bhava'' means all the created beings. ''Bhava'' for us means an emotional feeling. Like that he goes on confusing.

Here in the 16th mantra again he is confusing us.

''āśramāstrividhā hīnamadhyamotkṛṣṭadṛṣṭayaḥ''

''upāsanopadiṣṭeyaṃ tadarthamanukampayā''

There are three types of seekers with three types of understandings. Three types of capacities of understanding. Inferior, intermediate and superior vision. ''Upasana'' has been taught for them out of compassion. So Gaudapada is telling all students are not all same. Some third class, some second class, some first class. So, there is a beautiful incident. One day Swami Brahmanandaji was feeling a need. Swami Turiyanandaji was there. Swami Brahmanandaji called his attendant and told something, but that attendant did not pay attention. He did not understand what God alone knows. Then Turiyanandaji understood. He turned towards this Brahmachari and said, my son, there are three types of ''Sishyas'' are there. The lowest type of ''Sishya'' even after being told he will not do. He has to be forced to do by the ''Guru''. ''Mathyama'' is the middle type of ''Sishya''. As soon as he is told, immediately he will jump up and he will do what the ''Guru'' has asked him to do. But a first class type of ''Sishya'' is one who even before the need of anything for the ''Guru'' arises even in the mind of the ''Guru''. Anticipating such a need, the ''Sishya'' is already ready with whatever the ''Guru'' may require. He is a first class type. Then Rajamaharas turned to Turiyanandaji and said, Hari bhai, I have become old. I don't know how to convey these things. So, you give a little ''buddhi'' to understanding this for his own disciples. Of course, I have got my own way to make fun. So, they did not deserve him. Neither he did not, he also did not deserve them. Why? Because

''yatha guruhu tatha sishyaha''

''yatha sishyaha tatha guruhu''

Anyway, here he uses this word ''Ashrama''. What do we understand by ''Ashrama''? ''Brahmachari Ashrama, Grihastha Ashrama, Vanaprastha Ashrama, Sanyasa Ashrama.'' This is what is called ''Ashrama''. But even nowadays, most people don't understand it. ''Ashrama'' means only one thing, that is Monastery. Only ''Sanyasa Ashrama'' is an ''Ashrama''. And all the other ''Ashramas'', they are ''Shrama'' only, not ''Ashrama''.

So Gaudapada is trying to make us understand why the scriptures are teaching different teachings. ''Ashramaha Trividha''. ''Ashrama'' means the seekers, spiritual aspirants are endowed with three types of understanding. We can also say ''Tamasic'' way of understanding, ''Rajasic'' way of understanding or ''Satvik'' way of understanding. So ''Ashramaha Trividha.'' ''Hina,'' that is the lowest, ''Mathyama,'' much superior to it but still intermediate, ''Utkrishtaha'', the highest, first class. What is called third class, second class and first class. And there are some first class first also. So, all these seekers are called ''Drishtayaha''. ''Drishtri'' means way of looking. Way of looking means way of understanding scriptural statements especially. So that is why the scriptures are talking about there is a ''Saguna Brahman'' and the whole creation came from there and life is full of suffering, ''Tapatraya''. But there is a way out. That is, one has to worship, one has to develop devotion, one has to lead a ''Dharmika'' life, one has to have total faith in the scriptures and in the ''Guru''. So, all this ''Upadesha'' is for the sake of ''Upasana''. I am ''Upadishtaha'', this ''Upadishtaha'', this has been taught. That is the talks about creation and the different explanations how this world has come etc. For what purpose? For the purpose of ''Upasana''. What is the purpose of ''Upasana''? So that the capacity to understand slowly becomes cleaned up, ''Chitta Shuddhi,'' and better and better and better understanding will come. That is what Sister Nivedita also told in her introduction to the complete works.

So, ''Advaita'' is the final stage but ''Dvaita'' and ''Visishtadvaita'' are like ''Dvaita'' is the lowest step, ''Visishtadvaita'' is the next step. ''Advaita'' is not a step, but it is the very roof. But this teaching of the scriptures is for that purpose. Remember when Sri Ramakrishna expounded on the essential teachings of ''Vaishnavism'', ''Naame Ruchi'', the utmost love for repeating the name of God, great joy in repeating the name of God, ''Ruchi'', then ''Vaishnava Seva''. So, if you find some spiritual aspirants, serve them to the best of your ability, not only your teacher but any spiritual aspirant. But there should be only a few spiritual aspirants. What about the other types of fellows? So, you have to be compassionate towards them and that is what he said, ''Jeeve Taya''. Sri Ramakrishna was expounding these things. The first two are okay. But he also expanded them. Not only expounded them but expanded their meaning and what is it? ''Jato Mat Tato Path''.

The third one, you should never be able to look compassionately. Compassion belongs only to God. God alone can be compassionate. What about me? Well, it is ''Shiva Jnane Jeeva Seva''. You have to serve as if God himself has come here. And so many people understood. We have to extend our imagination. The first class ''sishya,'' ''uttama sishya,'' most ''yogya sishya.'' ''Narendranath,'' he understood immediately, not only what Sri Ramakrishna said, its implications, how they can bring harmony between ''Jnana,'' ''Bhakti'' and ''Karma.'' And he came out and said today my eyes have been opened. Such a marvellous statement I never heard in my life. The others were very innocent, and they belonged to the other two ''ashramas.'' And they asked him, we also heard, what did you understand? And for several days, future Vivekananda expounded to them the conflict that is going on between so many sects, religious sects, between free will and destination and so many other things, between so much of quarrel between ''Karmis, Karma Yogis,'' ''Bhaktas'' and ''Advaitins''. Even now books are being written condemning the ''Bhakti Yoga''. Even now teachers are there who say that is ok, that is necessary also, but it is an inferior path. You should not stop there, there is a higher path. As if they understood themselves! If they had understood they would never have taught that way. This very teaching proves that they have not really understood anything, not even intellectually they understood. Not only experientially they did not understand, intellectually also they did not understand. Because it is God only who has given all these teachings and that beautiful point is there, the ''Iyam Upadisht, Upasanaartham''. So, everybody has to be helped wherever he is. That was the greatest contribution of Sri Ramakrishna through Swami Vivekananda.

So Gaudapada says the students are of three types, low, middle and high. Here Anandagiri says his beautiful comments, low, those who look upon the phenomenal universe, this ''Jagat Karya Brahman'' as real are said to possess low intellect, middle intellect. Those who worship the ''Karana Brahman'', that is the ''Brahman'' as the cause of the universe, ''Saguna Brahman'', are said to possess mediocre intellect because they still live on the causal plane because Brahman is neither the cause nor much less the effect. He is, we can't even say, He is beyond cause and effect. In fact, He doesn't know what is cause and effect. How? I give you the example that in the presence of light so many activities go on. And if you thank light that so many activities you have been doing, you are activating every mind. The light would say, if at all it can say, what are you talking about? Me activating somebody? Who is that somebody? I don't know anybody. But in the very presence of the light, without light nothing can be done, with light everything can be done. By the very presence things will take place. That is the theory of the devotees. By the very presence of Narayana, or call him Shiva, or call him Shakti, they don't need to do. This beautiful point is so beautifully illustrated in ''Srishti Sthithi Vinashanam'', ''Shruti Bhute Sanatane Gunasrayee''. You, in your presence everything takes place, but you remain like what is called like the anvil, but ''Gunamayee'' you are full of ''Gunas''. So, the ''Karya'' is also you, ''Karana'' is also you and you are both beyond the ''Karya'' and ''Karana''. That means we cannot talk about it. Then why all this? Because of the mind. If we go beyond mind then whether God is ''Saguna, Nirguna'' is ''Karya, Karana'' whether there is creation. Even in your sleep there is no creation. What to speak of ''Nirvikalpa Samadhi.'' So those who think that those who are realized in non-dual ''Atman'' are said to possess superior power of understanding. So, the lowest one is one who is endowed with ''Tamas'' he should struggle to overcome ''Tamas''. The middle one is slightly better, he has to overcome ''Rajas.'' The first class one is endowed with ''Sattva''. These ideas have been beautifully expounded in the 18th Chapter of the Bhagavad Gita ''Sattvika Dhriti'', ''Sattvika Kartritvam'', ''Sattvika Bhakti'', ''Sattvika Vil'' everything so beautifully especially 17th. And some in the 17th and rest of it in the 18th. Three expressions of ''Sattva Guna, Raja Guna'' and ''Tamo Guna''. That's what we are talking here. The lowest person must practice ''Karma Yoga'' so that his mind becomes pure, and he will be able to understand better. The middle type of understanding person should practice ''Upasana''. The mind is ''Rajasic'' mind, too restless. So, he should practice meditation, contemplation, concentration so that that distraction, that dust will be removed. He will be able to understand better. When he becomes ''Sattva Guna'' ''Sampanna'' he should try to overcome it because ''Sattva Guna'' is also part of the ''Maya''. Remember, ''Sattva, Rajas'' and ''Tamas'' are the constitutional elements of ''Maya'' etc.

So, Gaudapada is telling that scriptures give various teachings. Sri Ramakrishna gives a beautiful example. A mother has many children. She cooks the same curry but in different ways to suit different digestive capacities. And exactly what is Sri Ramakrishna indicating, the scripture also does exactly the same thing. So many different types of understanding, digestive means understanding, capacities are there. So, the purpose of the scripture, like a Mother she gives some diluted curry merely a little bit of water, well boiled etc. That is very understandable. This ''Ishta Devata'' is real. ''Murthy's Archavatara'' is very real. Temples are very powerful. Pilgrimage is very good. You just go on. It is all for the sake of ''Chitta Shuddhi''. So it is said, lowest type of aspirant must practice more ''Karma Yoga'', progress. And the middle type of ''Sadhaka'', he must practice ''Upasana'', then he will progress. And the first class person should go on contemplating on ''Mahavakya'' and then finally he must achieve ''Brahmakara Vruthi''. And then he will also get out of this one.

Now we will move on to the number 17

''svasiddhāntavyavasthāsu dvaitino niścitā dṛḍham''

''parasparaṃ virudhyante tairayaṃ na virudhyat''

So, Gaudapada divides all philosophy into two. One is ''Advaita'', the rest is ''Dvaita''. So, all the people who are following ''Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga,'' ''Raja Yoga'', they all fall under ''Dvaita''. Only those who are following ''Jnana Yoga'', especially ''Advaita Siddhanta,'' they are superior. So, here Gaudapada is trying to tell that all the ''Dvaitins'', that means those who do not understand and accept ''Advaita Vedanta. Swa Siddhanta Yavasthasu. Yavastha'' means arrangement'', Swa Siddhanta'' means they have been taught by their Gurus, by their forefathers'','' by their fathers, by their family members, by their community. This is how we become convinced. You see one example I will give you. These Muslims are convinced that Islam is the only way. Not that the people are bad, but they have been taught, brainwashed that no other path is there. Everybody ultimately must accept, adopt, only Islam''.'' Then only there is a way. Similarly goes to what is called Christians''.'' They are a little more slightly what is called cultured. They don't express it that way but the very covert way of trying to convert people into their, clearly shows that they think other religions are not good enough, only their religion is there. Ok, so, God bless you. If you want you progress in your own way. Will they keep quiet''?'' No. What do they do? They go on fighting''.'' They are completely convinced that what they understood'','' what they follow is the only way. There is no other way. This is what Sri Ramakrishna found in the 19th century'','' the ''Vaishnavas'' are quarrelling with the ''Shaktas'' and ''Vaishnavas'' are also fighting with the ''Shaivas''. And everybody is claiming, even today you can see even these religious views, convictions, instead of helping them to grow spiritually, have entered into politics. Our Lingayat person alone must become Chief Minister or Deputy Chief Minister etc etc, otherwise we will not cooperate with anybody''.'' What has got Lingayat to do with that? That is a religious system. So, you have to see who is a better person who can do good to the state to the country. Not even to the state, because state is only a part of the entire country''.'' There is no Hindu'','' Muslim or Christian or believer, non-believer''.'' We are citizens of India'','' we are Indians, Hindus Muslims. These are all personal beliefs. It has nothing to do in the public view''.'' But unfortunately, Indians they rarely identify''.'' First, they bring up I am a ''Vaishnava'', I am a Tamilian, I am a Telugu person, I am a Kannadiga, and you are a Bengali. We will not keep you in touch''.'' We will keep you separate''.'' Though outwardly we are very cultured, ''hanji hanji,'' but inside we know what is your worth. Everybody is quarrelling with everybody else''.'' This is the realistic situation. Not only in Sri Ramakrishna's time, in this time also''.'' At least in his time from the religious point of view they used to quarrel, your God is superior. No, your God is inferior, my God alone is superior. And everybody claims his God or Goddess is superior''.'' This is what Gaudapada is pointing. ''Siddhanta Evasthaha'' out deeply embedded in their own beliefs''.'' And sometimes they may be sincere, they may be sincerely believing all those things''. Dvaitinaha Nishtaha Dridam.'' They are completely convinced that my way of life is the only way of life''.'' Not only the best way of life'','' only way of life''.'' What do they do? ''Parasparam Virudhyante''. '' ''They go on quarrelling. If you see even in the ancient times, it is a terrible, what is called, they used to call it crusades in the west''.'' The Muslims and the Christians fought each other. So, when they find a church, if the Muslims conquer, they remove the top and put an onion and they call it mosque. And then after sometime the Christians will come, remove the onion and make it a Gothic structure. Everything will be there. They are intelligent enough to say we can use this, but this is how many millions of people have lost their lives sincerely believing this is God's will and we are fighting on behalf of God. Why don't you simply say, O God, one what is called ''Sudarshan'' Chakra from you annihilate everything? But, no, we have to fight. So, this is called tribal mentality. That's what Swami Vivekananda has said. So ''Parasparam Virudhyante'', they go on quarrelling. ''Ayam'', that means this, that means this ''Advaita Vedanta. Tairayaṃ na virudhyat''. Nowhere it will tell because we understand that all the ''Advaitins'', everybody is wrong because everybody is thinking my path is right. They are fighting and their very fighting proves none of them are right. But we don't fight with anybody. This is what Sri Ramakrishna's teaching, ''Advaita Jnan Anchale Bhende Tayi Kuru. Tayi,'' the knowledge of ''Advaita'', in the hem of your corner of your wearing cloth. That means what? J''ato Math Tato Path''. Everybody is a child of God, everybody is progressing, everybody can progress and reach God and reach the highest reality. But no need to quarrel with anybody. You believe in your own understanding. Practice it. That is important and God himself, even if you are mistaken, God himself will show you the path. So, the dualists obstinately cling to the conclusions arrived at by their own enquiries as being the only truth. So, they contradict one another, go on quarrelling with another. Whereas the ''Advaitin'' finds no conflict with them because we know ultimately the only way is ''Advaita''. This is what really speaking Sri Ramakrishna has come to teach but he doesn't quarrel and say ''Advaita'' is the only way. He says don't worry ''Advaita'' is superior or ''Advaita'' is inferior. Don't go on even wasting one single second of your time. Just practice what you believe to be the truth. The only criterian is sincerity and then ultimately you are going to reach. How? Because as he gave the illustration. One man sincerely wanted to have the darshan of Jagannath. But he started walking in the opposite direction. And somebody, that means God's grace, came in the form of that somebody called ''Guru''. My child, what is your goal? I want to go to Puri, I want to see Lord Jagannath. Ok, this is not the way, you just turn and then you go that southern direction, somebody will show you the way. And Sri Ramakrishna knows if you are sincere God knows what you want at every second. Not even one second's delay will be there, one milli seconds delay.

So, this is what ''Tenayam na virudhyate''. But as Sri Ramakrishna said non-duality is indeed the absolute reality. But wherever you are simply don't even say what is superior, what is inferior, what is best. Whatever you know, take one step forward, second step will be revealed to you, third step will be revealed to you. But don't go on even thinking about the second step, much less the third step, much less the end. Once you know the end, let go the end and cling on to the means. This was the great truth that Swami Vivekananda learned from Pavahari Baba in Gajapur.

So, verse number 19

''māyayā bhidyate hyetannānyathā'jaṃ kathañcana''

''tattvato bhidyamāne hi martyatāmamṛtaṃ vrajet''

What does Gaudapada wants to say? Why all these differences of opinion because of the influence of ''Maya''. How does ''Maya'' influence? In the form of three ''Gunas''. So, the whole evolution that from the inorganic to the organic, then development of ''Tamo Guna'', then overcoming ''Tamo Guna'' and entering into ''Rajo Guna,'' progressing in ''Rajo Guna'' entering into ''Sattva Guna,'' progressing in ''Sattva Guna'' and finally then ''Brahmakara Vritti'' comes. Take off and then we know the real truth. But not to worry, wherever you continue walking. But what is the cause of all these differentiations? ''Mayaya Vidyate.'' Because of the inscrutable power of ''Maya'' everybody understands in a different way. Sri Ramakrishna says everybody claims my watch alone is right. Everybody's watch is wrong. And then Sri Ramakrishna comes to know the sun alone is right. Because always he will be the right reference. But everything is changing. Now what is the time now? It is six o'clock in the morning. What are you talking about? It is midnight. So, if two people go on quarrelling like that, of course we don't. Then what is the reason? The reason is our inability to think properly, and that inability is because of the ''Maya''. ''Etath na anyata''. That means really speaking ''ajam'', that which is unborn ''poornam, ekam'' ''nityam, imalam'' ''achalam'', it can never be born. That is what in the second chapter of the Gita said, neither Bheesma is born, nor are you born, nor any of these kings are born. Nobody is born, nobody is going to be born. That marvellous truth! Since you are not born it is not that you are going to disappear, dissolve or encounter death. So that which is not born it will never have death. Therefore, this is the nature of ''Atman''. Therefore, this Bheesma, Drona for that matter Duryodhana, your friends, your enemies nobody is born, nobody is going to die. This is all the misunderstanding because of the power of ''Maya,'' ''tatvatah vidyamanehi martyatam amritam prajitam''. This unborn changeless non-dual ''Brahman'' appears to undergo modification only on account of ''Maya'' and not otherwise. That means if there is no ''Maya'' we have complete identity with ''Brahman''. For if this modification was real the immortal ''Brahman'' would become mortal. How? we will talk about it in our next class

Mandukya Karika Lecture 105 on 31-May-2023

2023-06-13T17:28:22Z

Marrivamsi: Created page with "== Summery v1 == The 19th Kārikā of the 3rd Chapter of the Mandukya Kārikā emphasizes the concept of Advaita (non-duality) and addresses the views of Dvaitins (dualists). Gaudapada asserts that the ultimate reality is Advaitam, while Dvaitins believe in the inherent division of reality. There are two types of Dvaitins: those who consider everything, including God, to be separate, and those who believe that although originally Advaita, they become Dvaita and can attai..."

== Summery v1 ==
The 19th Kārikā of the 3rd Chapter of the Mandukya Kārikā emphasizes the concept of Advaita (non-duality) and addresses the views of Dvaitins (dualists). Gaudapada asserts that the ultimate reality is Advaitam, while Dvaitins believe in the inherent division of reality. There are two types of Dvaitins: those who consider everything, including God, to be separate, and those who believe that although originally Advaita, they become Dvaita and can attain Advaita through spiritual practice.

From the Advaitin's perspective, the experience of duality is only apparent and not real. They view the universe and God as seeming experiences within the framework of the mind. Dvaitins, on the other hand, perceive the world and God as separate entities. They believe in Saguna Brahma, a God with qualities, who creates and acts in various ways.

Gaudapada explains that the seeming duality is due to Maya, which operates in the mind. Maya creates the perception of duality, but it doesn't mean that Brahman has truly become the universe. Just as a rope appearing as a snake is not a real transformation, the perceived duality is a result of ignorance and perception through the mind. Brahman, being infinite, cannot undergo real change or be born.

If Brahman were to truly become the creation, it would imply that the immortal becomes mortal and the infinite becomes finite, which is irrational and impossible. The concept of Jeevatma (individual self) being separate from Paramatma (supreme self) and seeking union with it is discussed as the current condition of the Jeeva (individual) in the study of the Mandukya Kārikā.

In summary, Gaudapada emphasizes that the ultimate truth is Advaita, non-duality, and the perception of duality is a result of Maya and the mind. Brahman cannot be born or undergo real change. The concept of individual self seeking union with the supreme self is addressed as the current state of the Jeeva.

== Summery v2 ==
In the 19th verse of the 3rd chapter of the Mandukya Karika, Gaudapada discusses the two perspectives on reality: Advaita (non-dual) and Dvaita (dual). Dvaitins believe in the inherent division of reality, while Advaitins see duality as an illusion or apparent experience. Gaudapada argues that the perception of duality is due to Maya, which operates in the mind. Dvaitins consider both God (Saguna Brahman) and the world (Srishti) as separate entities, while Advaitins understand them as manifestations of the ultimate reality (Nirguna Brahman). Gaudapada emphasizes that Advaita cannot be negated, even though duality appears real from the perspective of the mind. He further explains that Brahman cannot undergo real change or be born, as it is infinite. If Brahman were to become finite, it would contradict its nature as the eternal and immortal. The idea of Jeevatmas (individual souls) seeking reunion with Paramatma (Supreme Self) is discussed, highlighting the perceived distance and differences between them. Gaudapada suggests seeking a Sadguru who can guide one to realize their true nature and overcome the illusion of duality.

== Full Transcript ==
We are studying the 19th Kārikā of the 3rd Chapter of the Mandukya Kārikā. In this verse 18, Gaudapada is asserting,

''advaitam paramārtho hi dvaitam tadbheda uchyate''

''teṣāṁ ubhayatā dvaitam tenāyam na virudhyate''

Gaudapadaa is talking about some of the ''Dvaitins''. Most of the ''Dvaitins'', all the ''Dvaitins'' in fact, that they do not accept ''Advaitic'' view. What do they say? That reality is always divided. That is why it is called ''Dvaitam''. So, there are two types of ''Dvaitins'' are there. Some people think that ''Brahman'' is always ''Dvaitam'' only. He is never an ad''vaitin''. ''Saguna Brahmam'', they don't accept ''Nirguna Brahmam'' at all. There are some peculiar types of people. They say ''Brahman'' is ''Advaita'', only one without a second, but He creates and He becomes many. So, for most of us we are in this condition. What is it? God created the world and He created me. And that is how I am called ''Jeevatma''. I come from God. I have to go back to God. Somehow the infinite has become finite. But if the finite goes to the infinite, it becomes again once more infinite. So, I hope you got the point.

Two types of ''Dvaitins''. For first ''Dvaitin'', everything is ''Dvaita'', including God. For the second type, originally it is ''Advaita''. Then we come down, we become ''Dvaita'' and again through ''sadhana'' we attain to that state of ''Advaita''. So, keeping these two types of people in mind, Gaudapada is addressing what is ''Paramartha,'' final truth, real truth, only truth, ''Advaitam''. And ''Dvaitam tadbheda uchyate''. So, what is this ''Dvaita'' then? So, we experience only ''Dvaita''. I am different, you are different. I am not only different from everything else, but I am different from myself all the time. I was a baby, then I grew up. Every day I am different from what I was, even one millisecond earlier what I was. Okay, this is our experiential point of view. We are all separate. But what about ''Bhagawan''? Yes, yes, ''Parinamavada'' is there. So, He also is different. He is ''Saguna Brahma''. And ''Saguna'' means sometimes He is kind, sometimes He is not kind, sometimes He creates, sometimes He withdraws. It is very difficult to say what this ''Saguna Brahma'' is going to do. So, for Dvaitins God also is Dvaitam. Universe, ''Srishti'', is also Dvaitam. But for the Advaitins, it looks as though this so-called Dvaitic experience is only a seeming experience. We have to keep in the mind, in the background, two views. One is really the ''Nirguna Brahma'' has become the universe. This is called ''Parinamavada''. The famous example is milk has really become curds. But if you question, once milk becomes curds, it never again remains as milk. It is permanently changed into curds. This is called ''Parinamavada''.

But the other view is, what about my experience? For that umpteen number of examples, famous is rope and snake. Really is the snake born? So long as we perceive it, it is there. But as soon as light is brought up, immediately the snake disappears. And then we realize there was never any snake. Snake was never born. And whatever is not born cannot frighten me, etc. So, this is the ''Advaitin's'' view. Seemingly ''Dvaitam'', not real ''Dvaitam.'' But ''Tesham'', the opposite people who are arguing that we don't accept ''Advaita'', we are all ''Dvaitins''. For them, ''Saguna Brahma. Brahman'' is never ''Advaitin''. But as I said, there are two views. Among them, yes, yes, our ''Brahman'' is ''Nirguna Brahma''. But he really created this world also. Some people believe. So, following this argument, for ''Dvaitins'', both ''Bhagawan'' also is ''Dvaita'' and ''Srishti'' is also ''Dvaita''. ''Srishti'' is ''Dvaita'', is very easily experienced. We see everything as separate from each other. What about ''Bhagawan''? Yes, yes, He will be in different moods. So, what are those moods? Two types of moods. So, if He is considered as not creating, He is called ''Brahman'', as Sri Ramakrishna says. But when I see that He is creating, etc., active, etc. Sri Ramakrishna gives the analogy of a snake. Whether a snake is just lying down, or it is wriggling, it is the same snake. But in one ''avatar'', aspect, it is not doing anything, I call it ''Brahman''. But when I see that it is doing something, then it is called ''Shakti''. ''Shakti'' means movement. ''Shakti'' means ''Dvaitam''. So, if we get any doubt, but really does God have two aspects, ''Nirguna'' and ''Saguna''? The final answer is no. It is because of my perception. When my mind is in one state, that is complete identity with ''Brahman'', I don't see any activity. I do not exist. Even I cannot say I am seeing ''Brahman''. But when I am working through the mind, perceiving through the mind, and the mind's nature is time, space and causation, then everything is ''Dvaitam'' only. So that's why this is ''Advaitin's'' viewpoint about God. Nothing can be told. Everything has become polluted by being described, excepting ''Brahman''. That's what Sri Ramakrishna’s famous saying to Eswar Chandra Vidya Sagar, ''Brahman'' alone remains unpolluted because ''Brahman'' is beyond both mind and speech, much less any activity.

So the point we have to understand easy way that when my mind is working I can only think about ''Saguna Brahma'', not ''Nirguna Brahma''. But when I get out of the mind, there is no I, there is no ''Brahman''. Whatever exists is one. And this simple truth, though simple, it is complicated. Gaudapadacharya is telling, what is the real truth? ''Advaitam''. So, what is Gaudapada telling? Real truth. Something is real truth, something is unreal truth from which point of view? Only from the mind's point of view. So, what about... I see innumerable things and they must have origin. That origin cannot be excepting ''Brahman'' and therefore He must be, what is called the origin, the cause. And Gaudapada says, just like a rope has never produced the snake and we cannot produce a snake, there is no snake at all. But as long as I, because of my ignorance, perceive something called the snake, it must have an origin. So, the rope has become the snake, etc? Really no. ''Advaitam tadbheda uchyate''. When we see ''Advaitam'' through the prism of the mind, that is called Dvaitam. It's not real. It is my perception. That is an important point.

But there are some ''Dvaitins.'' ''Ubhayadha Tesham Dvaitam''. God also is ''Saguna, a''nd this ''Srishti'' is also ''Dvaitam''. That is called ''Ubhayadha'' means both. Both God as well as ''Srishti'' both are ''Dvaitam.'' But whatever people may think, ''tena ayam na virudhyate.'' ''Advaitam'' can never be negated. We have no quarrel. What is the problem? The problem is people go on perceiving duality. What is the problem? If they believe in what they see and mind their own business, progress in their own way, no problem. But the moment they start asserting that my religion is true, my view is true, everybody's view is wrong, my watch alone is right, everybody's watch is wrong, that is where the problem will come.

With this background, verse number 19 is there. It is more or less repetition, but slight emphasis is there.

''māyayā bhidyate hyetannānyathā'jaṃ kathañcana''

''tattvato bhidyamāne hi martyatāmamṛtaṃ vrajet''

So beautiful logic is now employed by Gaudapada. And we can understand this logic much easier than the ascertainment that ''Brahman'' is ''Advaitam'' and nothing is really born. Very hard for us to understand. So, if you say, Oh Gaudapada, everything is what is called really ''Advaitam'', then what is it that I experience? No, ''Brahman'' has not become the ''Srishti'', but it appears to be ''Srishti'', appearance, seeming creation. That is what he wants. ''Mayaya'' because of ''Maya''. And where is this ''Maya''? In my mind. ''Maya'' works in my mind. Just as I, the maker, create a dream and then I divide myself as it were. When I come out of the dream, I have not created anything and whatever I thought was real is not real at all. No change has taken place. I remain as the maker. That is every one of our experience. So ''Mayaya'', because of the perception through the prism of the mind, ''Vidyate''. So, the ''Dvaitam''. ''Vidyate'' means different, different, different things. ''Dvaitam'' is seen. ''Na anyatha''. ''Ajam'' means ''Brahman'' or ''Jeevatma''. ''Brahman'' has never become ''Jeevatma''. ''Jeevatma'' is never born. It is impossible. ''Kathanchana'' is impossible. And he gives a beautiful logic in future Karikas, verses and very easy for us to understand. So ''Maya'' is the only reason why we perceive this duality. But when we perceive the duality, it doesn't mean it is real. So many examples are there. We see something shining like a silver. So, we may mistake it as silver. But that's not silver. When we go near, our mistake will be corrected. There is no silver. It is only appearing like. We see great body of water in desert land. There is no water. Not a single drop. The sand will not become wet at all. We see that a house is burning on the cinema screen. But nothing happens to the screen. Everything is a play of the light. So many examples are given.

So, because of ''Maya'', that is because of our problem, our mind, our ignorance, we perceive and attribute it to ''Brahman''. That real change is taking place in ''Brahman''? No, it is not. So, ''Brahman'' cannot be born. Born means can never be changed. ''Ajam'' means change. And we know there are sixfold changes. Sixfold. So conceived, born, growing, old age, disease, death. We see it. This is all the sixfold change. Birth means change. ''Brahman'' can never be born. ''Ajam kathanchana na''. It is impossible for ''Brahman'', that is for the infinite to become finite. Instead of saying birth, if we use the word infinite might become finite, easier to understand. Infinite can never become finite. So, there is a small instrument called kaleidoscope. You look at it every millisecond, the moment you change the position variously, one light appears to be a combination of millions of colours, combination of colours. But if you remove that instrument from the eye, then you will see that it is the same light. Nothing happens. Let the same light pass through a prism. Seven colours we can see. In fact, all the colours that we see really there are no colours. But every single day, every single second, we are experiencing these colours. So, it is not true that infinite can never become finite.

But supposing, here the reasoning comes. ''Tattvatah vidyamanehi.'' Suppose really ''Brahman'' has become this creation. Infinite becomes finite. ''Nirguna'' becomes ''Saguna''. Then what happens? ''Amrutam'', that which is immortal. Immortal means changeless. Changeless means infinite. Infinite means eternal. ''Martyatam Rajet.'' It becomes finite. Finite becomes change. Remember, ''Martyatam'' means mortality. Mortality means change. Change means what we call death. Just as birth is a change, death also is change. But this ''Mahamaya'' makes us think. When some baby is born, everybody laughs joyfully. But when the same baby dies or a grown-up die, it brings tears. Why? Because from birth onwards we can see until death everything is experienceable to our five sense organs. But once death happens, something inside the man goes and the body becomes decomposed, rotten, becomes useless. So, oh my friend, the infinite can never become finite. Supposing you say that the infinite can become finite, then what happens? ''Amrita'' becomes ''Mrita''. Immortal becomes mortal. And this is irrational. It is not possible. So why? Many dualists believe that there was one ''Brahman,'' and he is called ''Brahman, Paramatma'' or ''Ishwara'', whatever it is. And then we have become, we are all coming from there. I have become a ''Jeevatma''. You have become a ''Jeevatma''. I am in ''Samsara'', so I am called ''Samsari''. You are a ''Samsari''. So, all ''Jeevatmas'' came from ''Brahman,'' and they got separated from ''Brahman.'' And now ''Jeeva'' is going through various problems, and he is seeking desperately how to get rid of these problems. So, what should the ''Jeeva'' do now? He heard from the scriptures that if he rejoins ''Paramatma'', then he will be free from all problems. He becomes ''Sat,'' he becomes ''Chit,'' he becomes ''Ananda Swaroopa''. This is the contention. And even though we are studying Mandukya Karika, actually this is our position now. So, I am a ''Jeeva''. I am a thousand times convinced that I am a ''Jeeva.'' I am never a ''Paramatma''. Yes, a little bit of ''Paramatma's'' divinity is in me, there is no doubt. But there is an infinite, almost infinite difference is there, distance is there from him and me. I am weak and he is strong. I don't have many things, he has many things. And I know very little, and he knows everything, etc. So, what should you do? Go and get some sad ''Guru'', sit at his feet and get some sad ''Upadesham''. Yes, you are a ''Jeevatma''. God is very, very gracious. If you pray and surrender to him, he will remove your sadness. And a person who says you are a sad ''Samsari'' means some sorry, but a sad ''Guru'' becomes a ''Sadguru'' when he shows you a way out of it. So ''Jeevatma'', he practices spiritual life, gradually he progresses and one day he joins ''Paramatma'', he comes to know ''Aham Brahmasmi'' and then he goes on dancing. I don't know how he is going dancing, where does he get a space, where does he get a time? Because ''Brahman'' means beyond time, beyond space. ''Brahman'' means he cannot get some wagging his mouth. He said there are certain things God cannot do. What? God cannot do certain things? Yes, he cannot do. First of all, I can go on a holiday, he can't go on a holiday because he is everywhere. Secondly, suppose God gets angry with me and says I don't want to see your face. Let him try because he who is everywhere cannot avoid seeing my beautiful face. So, some limitations are there. Our view is we are limited through spiritual practice. We finally join the unlimited like a drop of water falling into the ocean. Then I become one ocean. Before that I was really a drop. Now I dropped that drop and I became the ocean. This is the idea. This is what Gaudapada is struggling to tell.

If by chance, ''Brahman'' has become ''Jeevatma'', then what happens? The immortal becomes mortal, the infinite becomes finite, the ''Paramananda'' becomes ''Alpananda'' and that is not acceptable at all. So, this is what ''Advaita Vedanta'' says that there was no ''Jeevatma''. To think that there is a ''Jeevatma'' is a mistaken notion. There is no real ''Srishti''. There is only seeming ''Srishti'' and that is what is called ''Vivartavada''. Therefore, this separation between ''Jeevatma'' and ''Brahman'' is only a notion, a seeming separation but actually nothing has happened. No separation has ever taken place. But if you think the separation actually happened, then what happens? It upsets a fundamental law, that is one loses its true nature. And why do we think that we are separate from ''Brahman?'' Because of ''Maya Shakti''. That is why the example, the analogy of dream is very important. So according to ''Advaita'', there is no ''Srishti'', there is no ''Prapancha'', there is no ''Jeeva''. It is all seeming only. So that is what Gaudapada is going to elaborate a little bit further and he uses beautiful logic in Karika number 20.

''māyayā bhidyate hyetannānyathā'jaṃ kathañcana''

''tattvato bhidyamāne hi martyatāmamṛtaṃ vrajet''

If you are reading the Sanskrit, at the end, if there is an exclamation mark, you have to forget about it. So, you have to say it is a question mark. What does it mean?

Those who are called ''Vaadis'', ''Vaadi'' means opposite parties, the dualists. So ''Advaitin'' stands alone and whoever is opposing him is called ''Dvaitin''. And whoever is opposing ''Dvaitin'' is called ''Advaitin''. These dualists, ''Dvaitins'', they contend. Contend means not merely arguing. They firmly believe in it and that's why they say where does God live? In ''Vaikuntha''. So, we will go to ''Vaikuntha'' if we do certain things which God commanded us to do, we will be going to Him. And slowly there also, ''Vaikuntha'' also, four stages are there. First is ''Salokya''. We enter into the same world. Somehow, we get a visa permit and enter into ''Vaikuntha Loka''. And then a long distance is there. So slowly, slowly, we are approaching. There also, I am guessing, there will be terrible traffic jam. So many devotees eating Tirupati ''Laddus'' must have reached earlier because Tirupati ''Laddu'' definitely will take him to ''Vaikuntha'' sooner than expected. So, they are jostling with each other to get near. Somehow this person pushes everybody aside and goes near. This is called ''Samipya''. And after some time, he goes on seeing the Divine Lord. He doesn't see anything else, and he sees, he hears, he meditates. Slowly like an insect becoming a bee, slowly this person, his form is changed. I am also like same form, like ''Bhagawan''. This is called ''Sarupya''. And this is only a very near stage. But there is another stage. Still separation is there. Then he goes nearer. And this is called ''Sayujya''. Permanently he will be there with God. But like ''Advaitins'', like a drop of water mixing with water he doesn't mix like that. It will be like oil and water. A small drop of oil in a vast ocean. But they become very friendly, and he will be going on enjoying the Divine Lord. This is more or less how ''Advaitin'' tries to ridicule the ''Vaishnavas'', ''Dvaitin's'' idea of ''Mukti, Moksha''. Even ''Sayujya'', there is a separation. There is real separation according to ''Dvaita Adi''. But according to Ramanuja, it is, you become a small part of the whole. You are the whole. That is what is,

''Deha Budhya Dasaha Jeeva Budhya Tudhamsakaha''

''Atma Budhya Tumewaha Sarvadinaha''

The disputants contend that ever unborn changeless entity or ''Atman'' or ''Brahman'' undergoes a change. Now, Gaudapada poses a question. How could an entity whose nature is changeless and immortal partake of the nature of the immortal? Mortal means what? It has changed its nature. Secondly, that which is immortal has now become mortal. So, become a subject of time and space.

''Ajatah Amrutah Bhavah Martyatah Kathameshati''

He is asking, ''Martyatah'' means mortality. ''Ajatah'', that which can never be born is never born and whose nature is ''Amrutah Bhavah'', immortality, whose nature is of immortality. ''Katham Martyatah Meshati,'' how can it become mortal? How can it change? That is to say it is not possible. He wants to fortify this argument. How we are going to see it. So, what is this? How can the unborn immortal reality indeed undergo mortality? There are various theological and philosophical systems which look upon the ''Paramatma'' as a person in some other ''loka''. Because person means he must be residing somewhere and that is why they call it ''Vaikuntha''. So, the goal is to go to ''Vaikuntha'' or Kingdom of Heaven, etc. How can one undivided ''Paramatma'' at all get divided into the form of infinite number of ''Jeevas'' and ''Jagat''? Very interesting point is, if ''Bhagawan'' is infinite, then ''Srishti'' also must be infinite. And in ''Srishti'', we get creatures with life, living and non-living. So, both are infinite. Living creatures are also infinite and non-living created things are also infinite. Earlier, we have seen what is called ''Ghatakasha'' and ''Mahakasha'' as if with the birth of the pot, pot space is born. Really, pot space is neither born nor does it get destroyed. It is only from the viewpoint of the pot that we think something is born and something is gone. So, that is the point. No, ''Paramatma'' can never become ''Jeevatma''. So, this is a very important verse for all of us.

What is Gaudapada's argument? We can imagine the essential nature of a thing can never be lost. It will never be lost. Sri Ramkrishna gives a beautiful example. Supposing there is fire. What is the nature of the fire? Heat and light. So, you say fire is there but ''Thanda Ho Gaya''. We say ''Thanda Ho Gaya''. What does it mean? It means the manifestation of fire because of some firewood, etc. That firewood is consumed. The fire is not seen but that is not changing the fire. Not only that, even if you accept the view, sparks are fire. There are some people whose imagination goes awry, and they say fire and its sparks, ''Agni'' and ''vispulingas''. There are some people who think manifestation of the fire.But one thing is there. Even a spark exactly is having the same nature, but the spark is because of the material through which fire is manifesting. It is nothing but fire. There is nothing called small fire, big fire, hot fire. We always say every day we are using we control the temperature of your cooking gas by reducing the gas. So, if it is very small, then the heat is less. If you increase the flow of gas, it will be more hot. Similarly, you go on putting water, water becomes very hot. So, water can be cold. Water becomes hot. Again, it becomes cold because the heat is not the intrinsic nature of water. It is only borrowed thing. Whatever is borrowed is going to disappear. So as soon as you remove the fire, the water becomes its natural temperature. As it becomes cold, even to say water is cold is not acceptable. Water is hot, not acceptable. Water is water. But if it is very cold, it takes the shape of ice. If it is very hot, it changes its shape into vapour. These are the three states of water. But the essential nature of the water is never changed. What is this change? Due to circumstances. Heat and cold. But the nature of the water cannot be changed. The whiteness of milk cannot be separated. So, the heat and light nature of the fire can never be separated. The sun's light can never be separated from the sun. This is our logic. So, what is essential nature? Very important. We discussed it many times. I also explained many times. Whatever cannot be taken away from a thing, whatever remains constantly, eternally as the nature of a thing, that is called its essential nature. What is the essential nature of fire? Heat and light. What is the essential nature of water? Wetness. So, what is the nature of sun's rays? Light and heat also, of course. So, you can never separate. You cannot cut it. You cannot change it. You cannot take it away. What is the nature of a sweet? To be sweet. If you take away that sweetness from a sweet, then it is like taking away the change. Then do you call it sweet? No, you cannot call it sweet. Not that the sweet has ever lost. The moment you take its sweetness, you cannot call it sweet. You have to call it either salty or sourish, whatever it is named. That means we are not talking about sweet, we are talking about something else.

So, what is the point? Essential nature is that without which a thing cannot be what it is. You take away the wood from the furniture, then it cannot be furniture. Take away the goldness from ornament, it cannot be the ornament. Take away the clay from the pot, the pot cannot remain. But so long as the pot is there, clayness will be there. So long as there is an ornament, goldness will be there. So long as there is furniture, woodness will be there. So, what is the point? The essential nature is that without which a thing cannot be called by its name. I hope this point is very clear.

So, the Upanishads are going to teach. What are they going to teach? All Upanishads teach only one thing. What is the nature of the ''Atman, Brahman''? Is it called ''Jeevatma''? Is it called ''Paramatma''? So, the Upanishads teach that the intrinsic nature of the ''Atman'' is eternal, it is infinite, and it is immortal. So, that is its nature. Can you change it? No, it cannot be changed. So, what is this ''Jeevatma? Jeevatma'', you have given the name ''Jeevatma'' to that ''Paramatma'' when you are looking at that ''Paramatma'' through the prism of this body and mind. You are talking about the body and mind actually. You are not talking about the ''Paramatma''. So, thus the immortal cannot become mortal. Not only that, the opposite is also true. If the nature of anything created is mortal and it is mortal, mortal means continuously changing, at some point we hope the eternally changeable nature of mortality can be changed into non-changing immortality. That is also not possible. So, either way it is impossible. So, the body and mind can never become immortal. The ''Atman'' can never become the mortal. Naturally, the question comes if this is true, then what is it we are attending this class? Why are you attending the class? Ultimately, to understand I need not have attended, I should not attend, there was no necessity.

Remember the story, a man thought he has lost his specs. He ran 3 miles at night, knocked at the door of his friend and the friend asked him what brings you at night? He said, I lost my specs. Then the friend laughed and said this fellow cannot see anything without specs. Such was his myopia. Myopia means ''maya-opia''. So, he cannot see anything. So, the friend asked, how could you run? How could you see the path? Yes, I saw crystal clearly. How could you see? Oh, all the time specs are on my head. So, he thanks and goes back. Now, this is a story, analogy. After that, the real question comes. Was it necessary for the person to run 3 miles at night? The usual answer is no, because he has not lost anything. But the running is necessary to know that running is not necessary. Running is necessary to know running was unnecessary. When does the person come to know that running was unnecessary? Only after the running is done. When do we come to know that ''sadhana'' is unnecessary? After doing ''sadhana'' only.

So, what shall we do? He says, now this is what ''Advaita'' is teaching. Your experience is you’re a Jeeva. Scriptures tell, yes, yes, you are a ''Jeeva''. No doubt about it. We confirm. You do this then you will become ''Atman'' by doing spiritual by doing something. That something is called ''sadhana''. That is what he says. Remember the story of Sri Ramakrishna. There was a farmer and he was an ''Advaitin.'' Remember, he was an ''Advaitin'', not a ''Dvaitin''. And he believed the whole world is ''Mithya'', appearance only. So, he had only one son and that son died. When his wife questioned him, he replied, yesterday night I dreamt that I was a king. I had seven beautiful princesses. The story doesn't tell us this farmer being a very wise man did not address his wife and said there is absolutely no comparison between my queen and yourself. I had seven beautiful princesses and they were so talented, so beautiful unlike this monkey-faced one fellow. And when I woke up and they all are completely dead. I lost all of them and it is true. So long as we are in the dream we can't call it dream. We only call it waking state. So, whatever we lose in the waking state, we call it loss. Therefore, only when we come to the waking state, we accept the fact we have not lost anything. It was my imagination. But Gaudapada teaches us a great valuable lesson. What is that lesson? The lesson is it is true, but the reverse also is true. Whatever we think is real in the waking state becomes like a dream, unreality, so long as we are in the dream. When we wake up, dream is unreal. When we are in the dream, waking state is unreal. That is a very important point in case you have not grasped it.

So, we know the incident. One devotee called Mani Malik comes. He lost his son. Sri Ramkrishna suddenly sings a song. ''Jeev sajo samara'' Death has surrounded you. So, so long as we think, we have to surrender and we have to cognize the fact of birth, growth. Just as we accept happily birth and growth, we also have to accept happily what is called youth and there is no controversy there. But after that controversy comes. We don't accept middle age. Somehow grumblingly we accept then old age much less and death even much less. But we have to know that if as a child I died, as an adolescent I died, as a youth I died, as a middle-class, middle-aged person I died. And this old age person also definitely will die. And the fun is even a hundred-year-old person say, I know death will come, but not now. Not now is the problem.

So, Gaudapada proceeds there. He says something whose nature is essential nature. That essential nature can never be separated from a thing. A thing is what it is because of that essential nature, and nobody can change it. Even God cannot change. That's why, can God kill me? No, He cannot kill me. What can He kill? What is killable, He can kill. What is killable? My body is killable. My mind is killable. My stupid ideas are killable. And all those things, any idea that even the idea of ''Advaita'' is killable also. All those things He can kill. But not really me. Me means ''Atma''. That is why you see in the ''Puranas'' in ''Ugra Narasimha'', God in the form of ferocious lion man comes and kills so called Hiranyakashipu. What does the Puranas say? A ''Jyoti'' came and merged in ''Bhagavan Narasimha'' indicating that the so called ''Ajnana'' has become ''Jnana'' and the realisation came, I am ''Brahma''. That is what He says.

In the 21st verse what is he telling?

''na bhavatyamṛtaṃ martyaṃ na martyamamṛtaṃ tathā''

''prakṛteranyathābhāvo na kathaṃcidbhaviṣyati''

This is the logic Gaudapada is striving to put it into our minds all the time. ''Amrutam'', Immortality ''Martyam na bhavati'', cannot become mortal. Nor ''Martyam amrutam tatha.'' What is mortal can never become immortal. And what is the conclusion? ''Prakruteh anyatha bhavaha. Prakruteh'' means the essential nature of anything. So, ''anyatha bhavaha'' means deviating from its essential nature. ''Kathanchit bhavishyati''. Whatever we do it is not possible to do it. That means ''Paramatma'' has never become ''Jeevatma''. ''Jeevatma'' cannot also become ''Paramatma''. Then what happens? Our idea that I am a ''Jeeva''. Remember our idea, our thought, our ''chitta vritti'', I am a ''Jeeva'', I am limited, I am bound, I am a ''samsara,'' is a ''vritti'', a thought. Similarly, naturally the idea comes. Is it possible for me to get out of this what is called limitation? Very interesting point is if somebody is very happy and because of this limitation would he like to get rid of limitation? What am I talking about? Suppose somebody's body is very healthy. Body is a limitation. But he is very healthy, he can eat nicely, he can enjoy, digest and he can defeat anybody, he is very strong. He has got very a beautiful wife. A lady has got beautiful rich husband. I don't know whether women like rich husbands or beautiful husbands If there is a competition between beauty and richness. I leave it to you to think about it. You are quite capable of thinking about it. Man's view is different, woman's view is different. So, the world will never become immortal. That means ''Jeevatma'' is never going to become immortal and ''Brahman'' has never become ''Jeevatma''. It is impossible for ''Brahman'' to become mortal. It is impossible for ''Jeeva'' to become immortal. All this time we thought by hearing, attending your classes we will attain ''Moksha''. But now after so much of torture you are telling that it is impossible for us as ''Jeevas'' to get ''Moksha''. No, no, what I mean is, you were always immortal. You thought you were not immortal. Through ''sadhana'' you come to know that I was never mortal. I thought I was mortal but now I know. The ''sadhana'' is to remove the wrong notion that I thought I am mortal and through ''sadhana'' I will become immortal. It is this important point that I want to do ''sadhana'' because I am a happy person, but I am thinking I am an unhappy person like in a dream somebody is dragging me and beating me black and blue etc. But when I wake up, what do I do? I simply get out of that thought. That thought comes to an end that I was very unhappy. Now I find no change has taken place, nobody has taken me anywhere. The same thing happens when a person has God realization. I was God, I am God, I will be God. Never have I become anything else other than being God. But the notion came I was born, so that notion, wrong notion. So right notion disappeared, wrong notion has come. Wrong notion disappears, right notion comes. It is a change in thought and nothing else. And that is good enough for us. Because what is it we want? We don't want to be having death, we don't want to be ignorant, we don't want to be suffering. And to be immortal to be all-knowing and to be eternally happy, infinitely happy is my nature. Once I come to know the purpose is served whether I go to ''Vaikuntha'' or whether I attain ''Moksha'' by claiming that I am ''Brahman''. The result is exactly the same. These quarrels are only quarrels between two types of thoughts, different types of thoughts like our quarrelling in the dream state. The reality is it is not possible ''Brahman'' has never become anything, he cannot become and this ''drishti'' is only a notion a thought. And how did it come? Books have been written about it but that's not necessary for us. All that we need to know is that I was ''Brahman'', I am ''Brahman'', I will be ''Brahman''. Somehow the notion came I am not ''Brahman.'' And through ''Sadhana'', with the grace of ''Guru'' and God I have gotten rid of that notion that I am not ''Brahman.'' But now I realise I was, I am, I will ever be ''Brahman''. This is what Gaudapada wants to convey in this 21st.

Mandukya Karika Lecture 106 on 7-June-2023

2023-06-13T17:13:52Z

Marrivamsi:

== 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 ''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

2023-06-13T17:04:03Z

Marrivamsi: Created page with "== Summery == 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, unch..."

== Summery ==
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.

== 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 ''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.