Mandukya Karika Lecture 124 on 11-October-2023

Full Transcript (Not Corrected)

In our last class, we spent the entire time summarizing the Karikas in the fourth chapter called "Alatha Shanti Prakaranam," specifically Karikas 14 to 23. Previously, Gaudapada refuted two philosophical schools: the first was Nyaya-Vaisheshika, which proposed the theory of the creation of the world out of nothing (Asatkaryavada). The second was the Sankhya and Yoga schools, which followed the theory of Satkaryavada. Nyaya-Vaisheshika claims something new emerges from nothing, while Sankhya and Yoga propose that something pre-existing transforms into something new, like a pot emerging from clay. Their theory states that a pot is essentially nothing but clay, possessing a name, form, and utility. No separate entity called "pot" exists—this is known as Satkaryavada.

However, Gaudapada's ultimate intention is to deny the existence of the world altogether because what we commonly refer to as the world is fundamentally different from Brahman or the Paramatma. The real aim is not merely a logical argument but to uncover a deeper truth. Sri Ramakrishna suggests that the knowledge of Advaita (realizing Brahman) is essential, after which you can pursue whatever you desire, as nothing can bind you. Why? Because you have attained Mukti, true freedom. Only Brahman is inherently free. Those who are not Brahman can never experience true freedom. Freedom, in this context, equates to Brahmananda, a state where one is liberated from the limitations that bind us.

Mukti is more than just the removal of restrictions; it also involves attaining something positive. Imagine a person in jail who gains freedom due to political influence. However, this newfound freedom doesn't guarantee a comfortable life. They may lack shelter, food, clothing, and basic necessities. So, he has to work hard to attain these things. Mukti means not only being free from limitations because a stone is also free from all limitations. Is it really free? Yes. In what sense? It doesn't have any sense. It is not alive. It doesn't think. I am bound. I have so many desires, and I don't know why God has created me. I cannot get what I want. Such thoughts will not be there. Therefore, I am free. But it doesn't mean a stone is enjoying something incomparably greater happiness. No. It's like our deep sleep. We don't have problems, but, in reality, we are experiencing a problem-free life. However, positive joy, we are not experiencing. Only after waking up do we say, 'I slept well. I was very happy.' That happiness is a negative type of happiness, free from all problems. But, in a positive sense, I am not really a very happy person. That is not there. Mukti means being free from limitations and experiencing a profound, positive joy—an incomparable and unimaginable Ananda, known as Pramananda. This level of bliss can only be achieved when Samsara is transcended. In Samadhi, this is what happens: not only complete freedom but incomparable, unimaginable Ananda called Brahmananda. This can never come as long as Samsara is present. Swami Vivekananda, you know what he said? He said, 'I have preached, I have spoken about nothing but the Upanishads.' What do the Upanishads preach? Of course, every school of philosophy is interpreting in its own way, but we are followers of Sri Ramakrishna. So, we only take the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna: Advaita. What Shankaracharya is proposing is that Parabrahman, the Supreme Reality, having become one with Him, then you can do whatever you like. That is what Swami Vivekananda means: infinite bliss. That is what is experienced. Not infinite existence, not infinite knowledge. Nobody wants it. If I am not happy and God comes and says, 'I will give you deathless life. You can live forever and ever like Ashwathama,' that is not going to help. I have to be positively very happy. All of us are rational people. If we are asked, 'Do you want to live like Ashwathama? Or do you want to experience intense happiness, even if it's just for a day?' Of course, we will all jump. We want to live, or at least we want to live a problem-free life. If a problem-free life is full of boredom, then we never want it. Instinctively, if we think deeply, that is what we come to.

Gaudapada aims to establish the idea that the creation of the world and our essential nature as Brahman are diametrically opposed. It's not a matter of mere opposites like darkness and light or happiness and unhappiness. When one is present, the other is completely absent, to the extent that the idea of its absence doesn't even arise.

From Karikas 14 to 23, Gaudapada counters the Mimamsa system, which believes our present birth results from past life's Karmaphala. According to them, the key to mukti is escaping the cycle of rebirth (punar janma), meaning there should be no further births.

But how to attain that mukti? This is the Karma kanda, the first portion of the Vedas. It holds that merit can provide it. How does it bestow it? So, experiencing all the Karmaphala that has accumulated from innumerable past births will be exhausted in the present birth in the form of happiness and unhappiness. But what we should do is refrain from creating any new Karma. Thus, all the past Karmaphala will be exhausted in this one life. And by not generating any new Karmaphala, we will not have future births. So, if someone asks, 'How do you prevent obtaining any Karmaphala in the present life?' For that, the scriptures tell us that nitya, naimittika, prayaschitta, nishayata, and upasana are the means through which all these five types of Karmas can help us avoid creating new Karma. If we can do this, what will happen? We will not be able to generate any new Karma. To achieve this, Gaudapada wants to emphasize that it is impossible not to create new Karma for many reasons. One important reason is that it is not possible to exhaust, in one life, the Karmaphala that has accumulated over many, many lives. And how do we prevent producing new Karmaphala? What do they say? What does Shankara counter from Mimamsakas? They are called Purva Mimamsakas. Vedantins, Advaita Vedantins, they are called Uttar Mimamsins, following the last portion of the Vedas known as Gnanakanda. How do you counter it? It is impossible, being what we are, not to desire any Karmaphala. Every millisecond, due to the past samskaras, they force us, I want to eat this thing. I've seen an old man who was born in South India, but even before death, he wanted to eat one small idli with chutney. So the samskara is impossible to stop. What samskara? Good and bad. Not only that, especially to enjoy life. So you may posit a system where you say it is possible to stop all Karma. No, it is not possible. Is it really not possible? Of course it is possible, but it must be practiced as a spiritual discipline for many lives. In what form? This is called Nishkama Karma or it is called Karma Yoga. Just, 'O Lord, I am an instrument. I don't feel that I am doing, but I feel I am the instrument. You use this instrument. So if we can develop that kind of attitude, then alone the Karmaphala can be avoided. Absolutely, no doubt about it. It is only for this Sharanagati, whether it is Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Jnana Yoga, or Raja Yoga, are posited. Ultimately, then the bondage of avidya will go away, jnanam will come, and we become free.

Now, this introduction I have given you is to remind ourselves. So there are Mimamsakas. They posit this system. Gaudapada pointed out six objections against the Mimamsaka's school of philosophy. What are they? The present body is the result of the last birth's Karma. Karma is the cause, and the body is the effect. But it is impossible, because how did I do Karma in the last birth? It was because of the body. How did that body in the last birth come about? It was because of its cause, which is Karmaphala from the previous birth. So, no, no. What is called Karma is the cause that is nullified. No, no. Mimamsakas will be telling, 'No, the body is the cause.' How did the body come about? Did God create the body directly? No, He cannot create. Why can't He create? Does He lack the power to create? No, He doesn't lack the power to create. But the point is, when we look at this world, there are countless numbers of bodies. Even in any specific village in any part of the world, belonging to any country, no two human beings are alike. Now, did God create all these people with all those differences? We have to say, no, He cannot. Why? Because He will be accused of partiality. One body is healthy, another is unhealthy. One is short-lived, another is long-lived. One is born in a rich man's family, another in a poor man's family. So, God cannot create. Then what is the answer? Both are anadi. Karma and Sareera, Karma and body, both originate simultaneously. This is illogical because cause and effect can never be simultaneous. Then Karma and Sareera, both are mutually cause and effect, mutually at the same time cause and effect. It is also illogical. These are the four minor points. But the fifth question is, if you ask a Meemamsaka, when did this Samsara start? Karma and Sareeram, both are simultaneous. When did they start? They are Anadi. If they are Anadi, that is illogical because if the body and mind are Anadi, this logic means, in our experience, what happens? There is a seed, and then there is a tree that grows from that seed. And that tree produces seeds. And again, that seed becomes the cause. So, cause and effect cannot be simultaneous. That is impossible. Even if you posit Anadi, you are only exhibiting your ignorance. That is what Gaudapada pointedly says. If you are ignorant, be frank and admit, 'I don't know.' This is the fifth point.

But the final one is very important for us. What is it? Supposing you say Karma and Sareeram, this series, they are Anadi, supposing you say, then you study some scriptures, and then you feel like there is something called Mukti or liberation. So, there is a way for obtaining Mukti. You start doing Sadhana, and on January 1, 2024, you attain Mukti. So, Mukti started on January 1, 2024. Your Samsara ended on January 1, 2024. Supposing, for argument's sake, this is the silliest argument because just now you said, this Karma and Sareera are anadi, that which is beginningless can never come to an end. It is a law if something is beginningless, then it cannot come to an end because that which comes to an end can only be that which starts. In this world, a baby is born, that is the beginning. And then he grows up or sometime he dies, that is the end. We never see any exception which is never born, which comes to an end. It is not possible. So, this anadi series is not possible. This is the first point. The second point is, as I mentioned in my last class, Anirmoksha Prasanga. Nirmoksha means non-Mukti, not obtaining Mukti. Why? Because a Mukti that starts on January 1, 2024 is going to end at some point because that which has a beginning must come to an end. Why? Because the words beginning and end always posit our concept of time. If you don't have the concept of time, you will never say this. In Sushupti, when did your Sushupti start and when did your Sushupti end? This can never be answered. Of course, I know. Many of us answer, '11 o'clock I laid myself down on the bed and 5 o'clock I woke up. So, my Sushupti started at 11 o'clock at night and ended at 5 o'clock the next morning.' This is an unthinking, illogical response because how do you know that your Sushupti started? Are you aware? Are you keeping a watch? Let me press the watch when I enter into Sushupti state. And how do you know it ended? Again, the same watch. Now my Sushupti is going to end. I am going to press the button. In that which there is no concept of time, that is called Sushupti. But then what are we talking about 11 to 5 o'clock? From the waking point of view, 11 o'clock I went to bed, and when I woke up and looked at the time, it was 5 o'clock. It is this concept, thinking in the waking state, never in the deep sleep state. Deep sleep means going beyond the mind. Going beyond the mind means time, space, and causation. So that which is beginningless cannot come to an end, and that which begins can never be endless. These are the two points, and we are following the logic. So Gaudapada has refuted the first Asatkarya Vada of the Nyaya Vaisesika, then the Satkarya Vada of the Sankhya Yoga, and through six possible objections, the Mimamsaka system of thought. That is what has happened.

Now we are entering into what is called a logical loop. Gaudapada aims to establish Ajati Vada. If we accept Ajati Vada, this Anadi series, beginning of Mukti, all problems will be completely negated. How can they be negated? Because you are never born, and the person who is never born is not going to ask any questions.

So, I remember a beautiful story. There was a great Sanyasi, and he had a very rich disciple, a householder. This householder was frightened of death. So, one day he came when he attained his 70th birthday celebration, shaking all over. He said, 'O Sadguru, O Paramgurur Brahma Gurur Vishnu, grant me a boon.' The Guru asked, 'What boon do you want?' 'I don't want ever to die. Let me live forever.' That foolish fellow never thought that after 30 years, he would be alive but unable to eat, see, or do anything, and he would want to die. He couldn't even die without taking this boon from the Guru. He never thought of this. The Guru immediately placed his hand on his disciple's head and said, 'I am granting you the boon. You are never, ever going to die.' The disciple then gave a generous donation to his Sadguru and happily went back. Now, the disciples of this Guru were stunned and turned towards him, saying, 'Guruji, now we have a big problem with you. Are you out of your mind?' 'Why?' The Guru asked. 'Because just now, you yourself cannot avoid your own death, and we are all eagerly waiting, as it is a huge property. So many rich devotees have donated because of your Mahima, and we, the disciples, are waiting. When you die, we will become the head of the center and enjoy all those things. You yourself are going to die sooner or later. If not later, we will take care of it. So how did you bless the disciple?' The Guru looked at his foolish disciples with pitying eyes and said, 'You idiots! I gave him the boon that he is not going to die. And did you see? A huge donation has come for all of you to enjoy after I pass away. But now, tell me, as long as he is alive, he is not going to complain that your boon is a useless one. And when he dies, who is going to complain? Stupid fellows.

Mukti means there is no Samsara, no awareness of Samsara, no problem, and no question of a solution to the problem. But so long as we are in Samsara, there is a problem. Is there a solution? Yes. What is the solution? To say that Samsara doesn't exist at all. It is not solving a problem; it is dissolving the problem. I hope you understand the difference between these two. Solving the problem, even if you solve the problem, guarantees it will come back, pop up, spring up many times from different corners, whether you want it or not. If there is a problem, it can never be permanently solved or eradicated, even if it can be temporarily resolved or shelved. But if there is no problem at all, like you have a dream and someone is chasing you to kill you, perhaps a tiger, and that is a big problem, you think. What is the solution? If someone comes, kills the tiger, that is a very temporary solution, because the same person who saved you might look at your diamond rings and use the same gun to shoot you, because he wants to take what you have. But what is the solution? The solution is to wake up. When we wake up, the problem of the tiger is not solved, but the problem itself is dissolved. So, that is what Advaita Vedanta or any school of philosophy wants to say: the problem has to be dissolved. And some schools of philosophy think the problem can be solved. That is the argument of Gaudapada. If the problem is real, the solution can also be real, but if the problem is real, it will always exist. So, if you have a body, either a headache, a toothache, a stomachache, or some form of pain, physical or emotional, will come again and again. If there were to be no body, all problems would be solved. That is what he wants to establish. This is what he calls Ajati Vada. Creation is not there at all, but our problems start with this statement. Hearing this statement, 'I am suffering,' we ask, 'How can you say the problem doesn't exist?' Vedas do not deny. Upanishads do not deny. Saints do not deny. Yes, at present, you think there is a problem, even though there is no problem. But as long as you are convinced that there is a problem, we will find out a solution, even if it is only temporary. Ultimately, you will have to realize that the problem is your own creation. It doesn't really exist, just like a madcap claiming, 'I am Napoleon.' Is that a real problem? No. Is it a real problem? Yes. So, everyone understands that this person is not Napoleon, even he himself was not claiming to be Napoleon from birth. At some point in time, his delusion had possessed him. So, the psychiatrist or counselor will take him slowly, make him understand that it is a thought in his mind, and nothing else. Then the person himself removes that one thorn with another thorn, as Ramakrishna puts it. So, that is the only solution, and that solution, in fancy terms, is called Ajati Vada, or there is no creation at all. You are thinking there is a creation, but this is a delusion. Even you do not think there is a creation when you are in deep sleep. All of us go through three states: one is called waking, another is called dreaming, and another is called deep sleep or dreamless sleep. Only the problem exists in the waking and dream states. But even the dullest person, even a nastika, even a poor person, when they go into Sushupti, there is no awareness of body or mind, and there is no problem. They don't seek a solution. If we can understand the same truth and apply it to both the waking and dream states, the problem will disappear. That is called dissolving the problem, not solving the problem.

Up to the 23rd, this is what has transpired. Now, I'd like to provide an introduction for today's class. Gaudapada, from Karika 24 to Karika 28, aims to counter another system of philosophy known as the Nastika system. In India, various schools of philosophy have arisen, and they have been divided into two categories: the Astika system and the Nastika system. It's important to clarify that these are systems, rather than a single system.

What's the difference between these two categories? I've mentioned this multiple times, and I believe it's worth repeating. In the context of Vedic Dharma, whether someone is a non-believer or a believer isn't defined by their belief in God. It's not about those who claim they don't believe in God versus those who believe in God's existence. The common understanding is that those who profess belief in the existence of God are called Astikas, indicating their Astiti Bhavana (belief in existence), while those who think God doesn't exist are labeled Nastikas. However, this common definition doesn't align with the Vedika perspective.

The accurate definition is as follows: Astikas are those who believe in the realness of the Vedas, recognize the Vedas as a valid authority (Pramana), and accept the Vedas as Apaurusheya (eternal knowledge). Those who acknowledge the Vedas' Pramanikata (validity) alone deserve to be called Astikas. To illustrate, if someone claims they believe in the Vedas but not in God, this doesn't make them an Nastika. In fact, the Mimamsa philosophy holds that there are individuals who believe in Vedas but not in God. Those who believe in the Vedas exclusively are known as Astikas. Those who do not believe in the Vedas are referred to as Nastikas. Even if someone professes belief in God but not in the Vedas, according to Hinduism, they are still considered Nastikas. It's important to understand this distinction clearly.

Now, all six schools of Indian philosophy are considered Astika because they all, without any controversy, believe in Veda as a Pramanikam. However, there are exceptions. For instance, Sankhya Yoga and Mimamsakas believe in Vedas but do not believe in God (Ishwara). How do their mantras work? Mantras themselves have inherent potency and power. They don't require a God for their effectiveness. I won't delve into this in detail, but I wanted to provide a general introduction. For more details, you'd need to study texts that elaborate on these topics.

So, these are the Astika Darshanas. Darshana means a school of philosophy. Now, contrasted with these Astika schools of philosophy, we have the Nastika Darshanas. How many are there? There are six schools of philosophy, or you can make another division into three schools of philosophy. Who are they?

1. Jaina: They don't believe in God, and they don't accept Veda Pramana. So that's one school of philosophy called Jaina Darshana.
2. Charvaka: This is a materialist school. They don't believe in Vedas, Ishwara, rebirth, or Karmaphala. Their philosophy is simple: "As long as you live, live happily." That's the essence.
3. Then, if someone wants to live happily but doesn't have the means to do so, they might use a credit card to buy things. This perspective led to the economic crisis of 2010 when the entire western world's economic system collapsed. They gave out loans with no thought of how to recover them. This is a purely materialistic view.
4. So, you take a loan, you enjoy it. As we say, Indians are very fond of anything made with ghee. That is to say, all items should be prepared with pure ghee. All the sweets, like those in Hyderabad, are supposed to be made only with pure ghee. But how are you going to repay? Then he says, 'What do they want to do?' Because when I die, there is no rebirth." Once this body is cremated, it won't return. So, what if the debtor comes to collect the debt? Their response would be to evade the debtor by any means necessary. This school of thought is called Charvaka Darshana.

Indians have a knack for giving apt names. They named this school Charvaka, which means beautiful speech. These proponents could convince people to give them 10,000 rupees and turn it into 1 crore rupees through their eloquent speeches. This led to many scams and financial problems due to our greediness.

These are the two Nastika Darshanas: Jaina and Charvaka. What about the third one?

The third one is called Bauddha Mata, which represents Buddhist thinking. This Buddhist thinking was later divided into four distinct schools of philosophy after Buddha's passing. Initially, it was divided into two schools: Hinayana and Mahayana. Hinayana developed two specific schools of philosophy, and Mahayana branched into two schools of philosophy, totalling four schools. All four are Nastika Darshanas. They don't believe in God, and they don't believe in the Vedas.

Now, you might wonder, if Buddhism doesn't believe in God, and Jainism also doesn't believe in God, are they materialists? No, they are not materialists. What are they then?

They believe in a state of Mukti, something eternal, something unoriginated that can free you from all the problems of Samsara. This is what they call Nirvana or Mukti, Shunyam, regardless of the name. Buddha was not a materialist. He was one of the greatest monks in the world, and thanks to him, millions of people became monks. But why? Did they want to annihilate themselves? Did they aim to become non-existent? I'm addressing this because some people misinterpreted the word Nirvana as the complete extinction of existence, utter annihilation. This was not what Buddha meant. Buddha's teaching was about annihilating the false Ahamkara, which is the root cause of all Samsara problems. Ahamkara is Samsara and is the root of all problems. To explain further, there is a distinction between Aham and Ahamkara. Heaven and hell hinge on this difference. Aham represents pure consciousness, while Ahamkara represents consciousness limited by the body and mind. When you identify with the body and mind, you experience various issues, such as seeing yourself as a child, an old man, someone suffering from a disease, or an unhappy person. All these problems arise because of the identification with the body and mind.

Nirvana is the goal posited by Bhagavan Buddha. He advocated that through meditation, compassion, and Karma Yoga, you annihilate your Ahamkara, and what remains is Aham. What Vedanta calls Aham, which is equated with Brahman, is what Buddha called Nirvana. Some people also called it Shunyam. Shunyam means devoid of Prapancha (worldly existence), devoid of Samsara, and devoid of Samsara's bondage. Shunyam is not a negative concept; it is positive.

This beautiful concept has been explored by Swamish Aradanandaji in "The Great Master," particularly in the Leela Prasanga section. Many people, including Buddhists, misunderstood the word Shunyam as the complete extinction of existence itself. However, this is flawed logically because existence can never become non-existence, and non-existence can never come into existence.

This marvellous logical idea has been beautifully explored in the 16th shloka of the 2nd chapter of the Bhagavad Gita.

nāsato vidyate bhāvo nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ

ubhayorapi dṛiṣhṭo ’nta stvanayos tattva-darśhibhiḥ

Existence can never become non-existence. Non-existence can never become existence. And those who are wise, enlightened people, they know both of these concepts thoroughly. Who are these people? They are called Jeevanmuktas, liberated in life itself.

So, if it is true that samsara is real, it cannot be negated. If mukti is real, that cannot be negated. Even when we think we are not free, the idea that we are free, if that is the fact, and we are only thinking, it's like a person mistaking themselves for Napoleon, etc. It is a mistaken notion, but it is not reality. If I am Brahman, I will never become non-Brahman. And if I am non-Brahman, then I do not even exist. That "nasti bhava, nehan anasti kinchana," nothing exists; that is called samsara. That is why it is called mithya. What is mithya? A Brahman thinking that I am not Brahman; that wrong notion is called mithya. Don't look outside; that tree is mithya, that mountain is mithya, that river is mithya. No, no, that has nothing to do. My notion that there is a samsara, I am the body and mind. Body plus mind is me, and everything else is the world. These go together. Where there is a subject, there will be an object. Where there is an object, there will be a subject. This division of the existence of subject and object is called samsara. Body and mind and the external world and my interaction with this external world are called samsara; that is mithya. Because all, what is called, three types of differences (vijatiya veda, vajatiya veda, svagata veda) are the result of thinking this division between subject and object.

We will explore that a little bit in our next, last class, Aitareya Upanishad. Now, what are we talking about? There are nastika darshanams according to one division. This can be divided as three: Jaina, Charvaka, and Buddhism. And remember always, those who believe in Brahman, whether we call it Brahman or not, or we call it the kingdom of heaven or paradise or satori or samadhi, whatever it is, there are people who believe in it. Jains believe in it, Buddhists believe in it. It is only the Charvakas who do not believe in it. So, these three. But this Buddhism has four branches, two belonging to Hinayana, two belonging to Mahayana. Right after Buddha's passing away, Buddhism had separated because of two different types of thought streams. Hinayana, that is the inferior way, and Mahayana, the greater way. Mahayana produced two systems of philosophy called Yogachara and Madhyamika. And Madhyamika became very famous and that is closest to Advaita Vedanta. There was a great soul called Nagarjuna. As I said, I am not going into details. He was one of the most brilliant thinkers in the middle ages in Buddhism, and he posited this Madhyamika philosophy. Some details I will come to later on. But Hinayana produced what is called Sautrantika, and Vaibhashika. These two schools of philosophy belong to Hinayana, and Yogachara and Madhyamika belong to what we call the second division, Mahayana. These are the four schools, and they are called Nastika Darshanas. Who are calling them Nastika Darshanas? Hindus are calling, Vaidikas are calling them Nastika Darshanas. They themselves don't call we are Nastikas because Buddha believed in "I am Brahman." Only he did not want to use the word Brahman because that is what is posited in the Veda, and whatever word is used by Vedas, Buddha wanted to completely avoid that. That is why instead of using Jeevatma, he used the word Dharma. Dharma means the word Jeevatma only. So one meaning of Dharma is law (LAW), not low (LOWS). Another meaning of Dharma, we have seen Gaudapada using them. So that is called all the Jeevatmas, all of us. So he simply tried to avoid Vedic terminology so that he should not be taken into following the Vedas. And why did he want to do that? Because of certain reasons. What is that reason? The reason is Vedic Karma Kanda; they were killing millions of animals throughout the year, many animals thinking that God loves goat's meat, sheep's meat, buffalo's meat, chicken meat, etc. And the more we offer, the more he will bestow his grace upon us. This was a terribly wrong idea. That is why South Indians substituted it with white ash gourd or coconut is the best substitute. I will talk about it in my next class. These are called Six Darshanas, and Gaudapada wants to deal only with these four from the 24th to the 28th Karikas. So what are those? Two belonging to Hinayana school of Buddhism, two belong to the Mahayana school of Buddhism and in the order Sautrantika, Vaibhashika, Yogachara, and Madhyamika. These are the four schools of Nastika Darshanas, non-believing schools of philosophy according to Hinduism which he had to counter because at some point this Buddhism had developed a tremendous amount of power in logical argument, and Hinduism, especially those who follow Karmakanda, what is called Mimamsakas, could not stand them. It is a wonderful history I don't want to confuse you. I think I have confused you more than sufficiently. We will talk about it in our next class. May Ramakrishna, Holy Mother, and Swami Vivekananda bless us all with Bhakti. Jai Ramakrishna.