Mandukya Karika Lecture 143 on 28-February-2024

Full Transcript

So, Gaudapada was explaining this whole universe or the theory of creation as nothing but our imaginations; that's all. This is called Ajati. Jati means creation. Ajati means no creation. So, this constitutes the very core of Advaita philosophy, seeming creation. It is not real creation. It is called Vivarta Vada, not Parinama. Parinama means actual creation and continuation. But Vivarta means like we mistake something as a snake, as a garland, etc. So, we are coming practically to the end. And Gaudapada is only taking the important points from the previous three chapters. But one point which he clarified, even this Ajati Vada, the theory that there is no creation, etc. This is only like a big thorn which can remove all the other thorns, which is called the belief in the creation. Once that belief that creation is real goes away, then this thorn which helped us to arrive at that truth, this thorn also has to be thrown out or it self-destructs, having destroyed the wrong notion, it destructs itself. So, that is the great revelation that Gaudapada wants us to understand. Because even the thought that there is a supreme reality is also a function of the mind. It is a thought in the mind. Of course, there is a reality, but that reality is beyond any thought. That is an important point. And then Gaudapada employs a certain type of words which we have seen in our last class. We were dealing with the 81st Karika or verse in the 4th chapter called Alatha Shanti. There he uses the word, three words actually, three terms to indicate the supreme reality. Ajam, Anidram, Aswapnam. That is Ajam means that which is unborn, indicating Turiya. Swapnam, the word dream, indicates both the waking as well as the dream states. Nidra denies or negates the deep sleep state. And I hope you remember what these particular terms really mean. So, Nidra means the power, special power of God called Maya. There are two types of powers. One veils the truth, covers up the truth. This is called Aavarana Shakti. Shakti means power, Aavarana means to cover. And this particular veiling capacity works only in the deep sleep. And then it doesn't stop there; it projects something else. First, the rope is covered, then a snake is projected. That projecting power works. So both the powers in waking as well as in the dream, we suffer from both these powers of ignorance, Maya. What powers? Not only do we not know the truth, but we think we know the truth in the form of names, forms, and qualities. But when we enter into the third stage, that is a deep sleep state, we are not troubled about the second power, projecting power. We only suffer from the covering, veiling power. That is, we do not know who we are, but certainly we do not think we are somebody else. As soon as we wake up, I am so and so. This is such and such, both in waking as well as in the dream states. But as soon as we enter into that state, blessed state called deep sleep, we do not know who we are. But we do not think because the mind is entering into its causal state, seed state. So it is there to come out as soon as we wake up, but until that time we are blissfully ignorant. I do not know anything, I did not know anything. But even that removal of projecting power removes all the concepts of duality. I am a man, that is a woman, I am rich, he is poor, I am unhappy, that person is happy, I am a human being, this is a tiger coming to eat me up, etc. Nothing will be there. I am, I am, I am. I know I am, I do not know who I am, I do not think I am somebody so and so. This is what Gaudapada wants to tell in the 81st Karika or Shloka.

I am really Turiyam, and every time I enter into a particular state, I put on a special dress through which I experience that particular state. And another dress, I experience a subtler state called dream. And then I remove and put on a third dress, and I enjoy tremendous bliss in the deep sleep state. But the person, the dress changes, but the person, the being who is putting on the dress, he doesn't change at all. Then one of the questions that comes is, okay, from the scriptures I come to know that I am that changeless ultimate supreme reality, but how do I know that? Simply remove the dresses and you will know. So when the dresses are removed, we have a special type of knowledge which is unlike the waking dream, dreamless type of experience. Here the experiencer and the experience, self-knowledge, takes place automatically. It doesn't go through the process of tri-fold, three-fold, that is the knower, the object known, and the instrument through which one comes to know, etc. One simply knows, I am. That is what he wants to say, that what is every one of our real nature, ajam, unborn, anidram, that I am not covered up by the veiling power, aswapnam, I am completely free from the projecting power. When through spiritual practice we come to know, I am not the body, I am not the subtle mind, I am not the causal body, I am none of these three bodies, gross, subtle, and causal, then something happens. This is what in human language, prabhatan svayam bhavati, as soon as the clouds are removed, the sun which is always there, we start experiencing that. Not that the sun was absent, after removing the clouds, somebody has to inform, clouds are not there, you come out and shine, it is ever there. But we are not able to experience because of the clouds, three types of thick, very thick clouds and a little thinner cloud and absolutely gossamer type of dress which is very little and then svayam prabhatam bhavati, just prabhatam means early in the morning, that is what we call the dawn. What happens, the whole night's darkness slowly starts disappearing as we progress in spiritual life. Slowly we see light at the end of the tunnel and then when we come out of the tunnel, then everything becomes crystal clear. Prabhatam bhavati svayam, the light is always there, we do not need to do anything and then does this realization happen slowly, slowly, slowly? I just now gave the example that when a train is travelling in a tunnel, slowly, slowly, it would be a very, very faint light and then it becomes greater density and greater and greater, not like that. Sri Ramakrishna gives a beautiful example, imagine there is a room, for a thousand years it is in complete darkness and will it take a thousand years for the darkness to disappear? No. In fact, even the darkness does not take time, as soon as light goes, 100% darkness will be there all the time. So you just take one matchstick and you light it up and instantaneously the burning of the matchstick and the disappearance of the darkness, it takes place instantaneously. Sakrut ibhati eva eshaha, eshaha means the supreme reality, our own self. Sakrut, immediately we start experiencing it. Sakrut means at the same instance, when the darkness of ignorance is removed. Why? Because dharma dhatu svabhavataha, this ever shining, self-shining, that is its very nature, dharmaha, it is its very true nature. What is it? A pure light of knowledge. Dhatu means here, it is what is called Atman, it is the very nature of the Atman, svabhavataha, the self which is free from birth and which is free from sleep and dream, reveals itself by itself. That means, there is no second object which requires to reveal it to us. Otherwise, logically, there is a fallacy occurs. It is called ad infinitum, infinite regress, if we have to remove one particular thought. Remember, all these are thoughts. I am ignorant is a thought. I am progressing is a thought. And I realized that is another thought. So, as soon as one very good thought, aham brahmasmi, I am Brahman, as soon as it becomes absolute conviction, unwavering and unsleeping, then what happens? Even that also is a thought. Aham brahmasmi is also a thought in the mind, but the mind is very pure. And the nature of purity is, it destroys itself, not only it destroys the darkness, it self-destructs. Then what happens is, that whatever is, that alone remains. So, that is what he wants to say.

This self, the self of each one of us, in its very nature, is ever luminous. The self that is unborn, meaning changeless, is explained here by Gaudapada as free from sleep and dream. It is to emphasize that what we are experiencing, both in the waking and dream, and also in the deep sleep state, we have to be free from that. This is what we have discussed in our last class. Now, we will move on to the next Karika, verse 82.

सुखमाव्रियते नित्यं दुःखं विव्रियते सदा ।

यस्य कस्य च धर्मस्य ग्रहेण भगवानसौ ॥ ८२ ॥

sukhamāvriyate nityaṃ duḥkhaṃ vivriyate sadā |

yasya kasya ca dharmasya graheṇa bhagavānasau || 82 ||

82. On account of the mind apprehending single objects, the Bliss (i.e., the real essence of the Self) always remains concealed and misery comes to the surface. Therefore the ever-effulgent Lord (is not realised though taught again and again by Scriptures and teachers)

So, the last line, "bhagavan asau, yasya kasya cha dharmasya grahena," what is the statement? This is the statement of the scriptures. Gaudapada is only reiterating it. It is not his own words. He has used particular words of his own, but the idea is from the scriptures. "Sukham avriyate nityam." So now, he has used a very beautiful word, "asau bhagavan." This "bhagavan," "bhagavan" is a beautiful word, often used by devotees. "Atma" and "paramatma" are the words used by the followers of jnana marga, but "bhagavan" is a word specifically used by a bhakta, a devotee.

So, who is the jeeva according to Advaita or any school of philosophy? Because even though we discussed the matter, I am just putting it so that we can remind ourselves. Remember, we can bring to the fore what we discussed.

So, whenever we say this world is a creation, there are two concepts about creation. So, what is the first concept? A mother gives birth to a baby. So, what happens? The mother is ever separate from the baby. The baby is ever separate from the mother, even though the mother is the cause of the birth of the baby, but they are two independent objects, two objects, both have existence of the object. So, if one object dies, the other object remains.

But the other concept is called Advaitic concept. So, you make an ornament with gold and you call it, let us say, bangle. Now the bangle, is it a separate object? No. So, what is the difference between gold and bangle? Gold is without form, therefore without name, therefore without any quality. But bangle is the same gold with a particular form, so a particular name. Why name? A name is to distinguish one form from the other forms. It is called Viseshana or a quality, an adjective. So, small chair, big chair, small bangle, big bangle, round bangle, square bangle. So, if I want one particular, if there are two, I have to distinguish, and I must express in precise words what I want. For that purpose, if there are two forms, two names have to be given. And how do we know there are two forms? Certain adjectives, small bangle, smallness, bigness, roundness, squareness, etc., etc. are the qualities. So, this is why we do form, name, and qualities. That is called creation. But there are no two objects called, gold is one object and bangle is another object. No, gold only with a particular form, because if you take away the gold, there would be no bangle at all. Otherwise, what happens, you give some gold to the goldsmith, he will keep the gold and he will give you the bangle. So, you don't go to the police. Does it happen? No. Either you have the bangle and gold or he has the bangle and gold. This is the concept of Advaitic concept, advanced concept of creation. We are, can we say, God created. God becomes both the material cause, the intelligent cause. But God only is appearing as a tree, as an insect, as a bird, as a human being, as everything in this world. Like gold only appears as a ring, as a bangle, as a necklace, etc., ear ring, nose ring, anklet, etc., etc. That is the concept Advaita Vedanta wants us to hold on to. So, this is the concept of creation. In that sense, there is no creation at all. What is Gaudapada? What was he talking about? If you think God remains there, like a mother remains there and she gives birth to a baby. So, God remains separate. The world remains separate. That concept of creation had to be overcome by intelligent people. That is what he wants to say.

So, what is the nature of the Self? The nature of the Self is Sat, Chit, Ananda. It does not know what is death. It does not know what is called ignorance. It does not know what is called suffering. But what is our experience? "Sukham avariyate nityam." So, what is called pleasure or joy or happiness is always covered. What do we mean by that? By that, we mean, when you are hungry, you are unhappy. And why are you unhappy? That means your body requires energy. Energy comes through food, and lack of food creates hunger. So, you will have to give some food. And food is nothing but energy. And therefore, as soon as you supply the food to the body, and immediately and slowly that energy flows back. And that energy is spent. As soon as you do any type of activity, the energy is spent. So, an activity is the transformation or usage of energy in time, in place. That is called activity. So, when we are seeking happiness, we think it is outside. So, when we eat a sweet, we think the happiness is in the sweet. By eating the sweet, the happiness which is inherent in the sweet is coming into us. That this is how the happiness is covered up within every object. And I do not have, if I want, I have to make every object as myself. Then only I will get happiness. This is the meaning of, so bliss is covered up. Then, just for one minute, all the time. But most of the time, we are unhappy because we are expending energy. Therefore, "Dukham Pivriyate Sada." Always we are experiencing what is called unhappiness. And in Vedantic terms, unhappiness is divided by time and what is called time limitation, space limitation, and object limitation. "Kala Parichcheda, Desha Parichcheda, Vastu Parichcheda." That is our normal experience. I am hungry and I require food. So, it takes some time to procure the food and eat food. And food also requires digestion and all those things. So, time is necessary. Then space is necessary. So, these are the limitations. But we overcome temporarily because as soon as we digest our food, we start expending it. And then again, slowly the process of again requiring food, requiring water, requiring air, requiring warmth, etc., takes place. So, what is the cause? Why is it that if you are, as you are proclaiming the self is Satchitananda, then I should not need to do anything. I should experience unending bliss, infinite bliss, eternal bliss. I am not doing it. The reason is I think I am limited and I also limit time, space, and causation in my turn. And then I get just a little bit of existence, a little bit of knowledge, a little bit of happiness. So, continuous struggle to become myself. But it will never end so long as I am identified with the body and mind. And the body-mind, it requires practically infinite number of things for experiencing this Astitva. For example, if we don't eat food, the body will not last long. So, the mind also has certain... I want to love, I want to be loved, and I want to be with my people. It's called attachment. Whatever gives us happiness, we want, we like it, we want it with us as much time as possible. But if we dislike something, we do the opposite. We try to get rid of it. The whole life is these two activities, trying to obtain happiness and trying to distance unhappiness.

So, on account of the mind constantly apprehending individual objects, a little bit of not very happy language, continuously getting attached to many number of objects, the bliss which is our very nature, the nature of the Self, always remains hidden. And misery comes to the forefront. The very seeking division, I am separate and everything else is separate, that limitation, Parichcheda, is the cause of misery. But who is the miserable one? Really speaking, the jeeva is none other than Paramatma. Therefore, the ever-effulgent, unborn Lord is not easily realized. That means He is only suffering. He doesn't realize, I am the Self. And how many Selves are there? Only one Self. So, even these epithets like Lord, I am the Lord and I am not the Lord. I am effulgent, I am not effulgent. All these are again human language. When there is only one being, the question of using all these things do not arise. Simple in day-to-day life also. This is our experience. Supposing you have got one book and then somebody comes. So, can you bring your book? You are not asking which book you want. Ah, you tell me, specify. Even if you have two books, you will have to ask a specific question. Do you want Ramayana? Do you want Mahabharata? But if there is only one book in the whole house, you don't ask. You don't require a description. You don't require different forms, different qualities and all those things. Because these are, as we discussed just now, to distinguish one object from the other object. If there is only one and that neither can be termed as object or subject, then the question of description doesn't arise.

Why are these descriptions given? It is because we are convinced 150% that I am not the Atman and I am an individual, completely separate from everything else. In this universe, there are countless objects. Even if you take only mosquitoes, there are billions and billions. If you take what we call the cosmos, how many stars are there? Countless. Billions. How many cosmoses are there? Billions. How many galaxies are there? Billions. It is mind-boggling even to think about it. But if there is only one, who is going to describe? So all these descriptions are to drill into our minds: You are the Paramatma. That is, you are of the nature of bliss. You do not need to seek anything.

Now the question that arises in our minds, but if I am of the nature of bliss, why am I not experiencing it? Because you are experiencing other objects. You are experiencing the existence, knowledge, bliss. But you are dividing this existence, knowledge, and bliss into billions and billions and billions and billions and trillions of all the objects. Not knowing that if you stand in front of a hall, which has got 10,000 small mirrors, you are only getting reflected as those 10,000 reflections. None of them are real. But as we say, if a dog is brought suddenly into a room, which is covered with various mirrors, immediately it jumps and it cannot tolerate the other dog. The other dog also strangely cannot tolerate this dog. So both of them start fighting and ultimately this dog dies because it is not fighting with any other thing except with its imagined reflection. So this is our condition. In a way, just to make fun, we are all dogs. What is a dog? God reversal is called a dog. And if you get a smell, a coda smell for example, what does a dog do? And that is what we also do most of the time, I will say.

So now to experience this, the many big IT companies like Apple are inventing a marvellous type of specs. I forgot its name. Vision. VR, whatever it is called. So already we are suffering so much. So virtual reality means what? That you cover up all the defects until you approach near and then you are swallowed up by that. Anyway, the mind gets more distracted. What should be done? The mind must get progressively attenuated less and less and less until it becomes absolutely still, which in yogic terms is called Ekagrata concentration, then meditation, then Savikalpa Samadhi. Finally, the purpose is to get rid of this. All objects keep the mirror absolutely pure and that pure mirror is called Shuddha Man. Pure mind. That is what we have seen in the... I hope you remember, Amrutabindu Upanishad starts like that. So we are continuously experiencing all the three states, waking, dream, etc. Who is experiencing? The Divine Lord, Bhagavan Asam. And He identifies, I am the waker, I am the dreamer, I am the sleeper. But in reality, it is nothing but pure Atman.

So, that is, now Gaudapada is starting a different type of argument. What is it? That how we are so much quarrelling with each other. Ramakrishna, he used to say, every religion is practically quarrelling. Does Hinduism quarrel? The most quarrels come only from Hinduism. But only the merit in Hinduism is, they don't kill people. Usually, they don't kill people. So we are learning nowadays a little bit of this one from other religions. So we only shout at each other. This is called Vada, Jalpa, and all those things. So, Gaudapada is now outlining four types of such views, where people uselessly go on trying to argue, I know the reality, I know the reality, etc.

That is being outlined in the 83rd verse.

अस्ति नास्त्यस्ति नास्तीति नास्ति नास्तीति वा पुनः ।

चलस्थिरोभयाभावैरावृणोत्येव बालिशः ॥ ८३ ॥

asti nāstyasti nāstīti nāsti nāstīti vā punaḥ |

calasthirobhayābhāvairāvṛṇotyeva bāliśaḥ || 83 ||

83. Childish persons verily cover It (fail to know It) by predicating of It such attributes as existence, nonexistence, existence and non-existence and absolute nonexistence, derived respectively from their notion of change, immovability, combination of both and absolute negation.

Balisha means, a peculiar Sanskrit term meaning childish people, means of immature intellects, childish persons. And these whom Swamiji had labeled as mustached babies. All of us, we veil truth by predicating such attributes as existence, non-existence, derived from the notions of the apparent, the permanent, the impermanent, combination of both and the absolute negation of both. So practically, every person's opinion about God, let us say, or about the self, falls into four categories.

So, what is the first category? Asti, God exists. That is the belief of a particular person, a particular school of philosophy. And what is the second? Asti Nasti, it both exists as well as doesn't exist at the same time. It may look like a stupid logic for both of us. Either something exists or it doesn't exist. What is this Asti Nasti? There are some schools which say, so it does exist, it also doesn't exist. They have their own particular type of arguments. Gaudapada is only outlining what schools of philosophy were there existing at his time. And the same thing probably doesn't exist at this time. Then the third type of school, it believes Nasti. No, no, it is God doesn't exist. And then, the fourth type is absolute non-existence of God. So these are called Balisha, childish persons, veil the truth. What is the veiling truth? The moment I express an opinion about God, that is why Sri Ramakrishna's beautiful saying, these are all great torch lights for us to understand the scriptural statements. Say, in Bengali, beautiful Bengali, he is talking, he is expressing. That is, Taake means about God. We should never put a limit because he can be with form, he can be without form, and he can be beyond both form and formless. In logical terms, these look like contradictions. But Sri Ramakrishna says, as long as we use the mind, then you can say he exists, he doesn't exist. He is with form or he is without form. He is with name, he is without name. And there are so many religions who kill other people because of these differences of opinion. Even today, some fanatical religions are there. They are ready to kill. So we should not utter a single word against their saints, prophets or scriptures. Otherwise, death for such persons, even now. And is it the fault of the people? Not at all. It is the fault of the religious leaders who have been brainwashing these people. This is the highest truth. After all, in whichever society we grow, we are hypnotized, mesmerized by those ideas. And then we take them for real. One small example I am giving. Many, many scientists have lost faith in God because they have been brainwashed. I suppose they heard that the good news is there is some brain to be washed. So they have been brainwashed. Nature can explain everything. But they are so idiotic. They cannot stop to think for one example. That according to them, nature is non-conscious. Nature is lifeless. How does a lifeless nature, how does an unintelligent nature, produce such mind-boggling varieties of life and so much of intelligence? You can even take an Einstein, a Beethoven, a Shakespeare, etc. It is one of the greatest manifestations of intelligence. And now AI is coming. Some brilliant minds are trying to bring it about. But nobody had broken till now the mystery of consciousness. What is consciousness? Even now scientists are 100% convinced it is an epiphenomena when the brain starts working and it develops a certain vague idea that I am conscious of something. So what is the proof that there is no real consciousness? Because as soon as brain is dead, then the person does not respond. So there is no consciousness. There is brain, functioning brain, and there is consciousness. There is a non-functioning brain, there is no consciousness. Therefore, brain and consciousness are equated. But do they know anything about the mind? Do they know about what is called consciousness? Do they know the relationship between the brain and the mind? Vaguest, foggiest notion about the mind also people do not have. But all the time they are telling we have complete knowledge of the mind, which is called psychology. Psychology is the science of the psyche, mind. No, they don't have. But Hindu philosophy approaches it in a completely different way. Now so far as we are concerned, these schools of philosophies, they are completely dead now. So they are not very relevant to us. They are just to remind at one point of time, these schools of philosophy, Vaisheshika is one, and Buddhist school is one, and Jaina school of philosophy is one. These three schools of philosophy, and the Jainas have one view, and the Vaisheshikas have one view. But the Buddhists there are, as we discussed earlier, four schools are there, and only two schools are being quoted here. So this is what he is referring.

As I said, it is only of academic interest. Practically speaking, it is not there. So what are these four?

First of all, Astivadins: Yes, God exists. Atman exists. This is called Vaisheshika theory. Vaisheshikas believe that there is the Atman, which is distinct and separate from the body, sense organs, prana, and so on. And what is its specialty? He is the knower, attribute of knowledge, and the enjoyer of both misery and happiness. How come? Because when there is a human body or animal body, where there is misery, there will be happiness. Where there is happiness, there will be misery. You cannot have one because they are not absolutes. They are only changing names for one and the same phenomena. Less light is called darkness, and more light is light. Less darkness is more light. Less light is darkness. That is how. So Vaisheshikas consider Atman, Asti, God exists.

And then there are in the Buddhist school, Kshanikavijnanavadins: Every second, everything is changing. So these people, they say subjective idealism. According to them, Atman, not what Hindus propose as Atman, but awareness, consciousness. Though separate from the body, etc., becomes identical with buddhi or intellect, and it is not permanent. Our consciousness disappears only after a Kshana. That is why they are called Kshanika Vijnana. Kshanika means momentary. Vijnana means consciousness, awareness. So you see somebody and one second only. After that, if you happen to see the same person there, a second type of awareness comes. But it gives rise, it is the same person. And that is an illusion. It is not the same person. You, the perceiver, is not the same perceiver. And the object whom you are perceiving is not the same object. Both you, yourself, your awareness also changed, and that object also is changed. And there are arguments which I will not go into, but I will just hint because time is changing. So one second before you heard me something, and that you, the listener, and I, the speaker, both have disappeared. Now your mind also changed. My mind also changed. At least your concept of me also has changed. This is called Kshanikavijnana Vada. As I said, we are not going into it. There are arguments. Shankaracharya argues very thoroughly, especially in his Brahmasutra Bhashyam. So temporary, this is the second type of argument. Therefore, there is no permanent entity called God or Atman. This is called Nasti Vadas.

Then there is a school of philosophy. You know, Buddhism is one school of philosophy, and similarly Jainism is another school of philosophy. What is this? Asti Nasti. This refers to the followers of the Jaina school of thought. According to these Jainers, Atman is both existent and non-existent. What does it mean? Though Atman is separate from the body, but it has somehow the same size as the body. How do you feel? Your Atman is bigger than you or your Atman is smaller than you? No, it is exactly I am the body, so my Atman also is of the same size, same girth, same fatness, same thinness, etc. So this idea of my Atman exists as long as the body exists, and when the body is destroyed, along with the destruction of the body, the Atman also completely disappears. This is called Asti Nasti. That means it is there so long as the body is there, and when the body disappears, the idea of Atman also disappears. This is Jaina theory.

Then there is somebody who is called absolutely, there is no question of any permanent thing, anything called Atman. These are called Shunyavadins. Vadin means one who believes and argues. Shunya means emptiness. Everything is empty. So ultimately what you see is empty. The seer is also empty. There is nothing. Everything is absolute to zero. And many Buddhists, they think Nirvana is that state where you become completely non-existent. So that much is enough for us.

So Gaudapada is just recollecting, these are all immature minds. Why is it called immature? Because when a person practices sadhana, meditation, prayer, etc., whichever path he follows, he himself experiences ultimately that I am the Atman. And nobody can deny one's own experience. So that is what the Tarika wants to tell us. So the same thing is summarized in the 84th Karika.

कोठ्यश्चतस्र एतास्तु ग्रहैर्यासां सदाऽऽवृतः ।

भगवानाभिरस्पृष्टो येन दृष्टः स सर्वदृक् ॥ ८४ ॥

koṭhyaścatasra etāstu grahairyāsāṃ sadā''vṛtaḥ |

bhagavānābhiraspṛṣṭo yena dṛṣṭaḥ sa sarvadṛk || 84 ||

84. These are the four alternative theories regarding (the nature of) Ātman, on account of attachment to which It always remains covered (from one’s view). He who has known that Ātman is ever-untouched by any of these (predicates) indeed sees all.

These are the four what is called alternative theories regarding the existence of Atman. But on account of attachment to these theories, they are convinced that "I am right," to which it always remains covered as long as we are believing in this type of limited understanding about the Atman. The Atman doesn't reveal itself just as so long as there are clouds, and a cloud doesn't mean what remains in the sky. If I put my small finger, a black object just to the size of my eye, and that is enough for me to cover not only the sun but the entire world. So the Atman remains covered, meaning the person doesn't understand I am the Atman. But how to understand? He who has known that Atman ever remains unattached by any of these predicates, indeed sees all.

What is Gaudapada trying to tell us? That let us not worry about these opinions. We should be a sadhaka, a spiritual aspirant, should be completely free from whether is God with form or without form? Is God with name or without name? Is God with qualities or He is without qualities? Sri Ramakrishna has a beautiful story to illustrate this particular point. Once a sadhu went to Puri Jagannath, and there is Jagannath's image. He wanted to know whether Jagannath is with form or without form. He had a big stick called a staff. So once he passed it from the right side to the left side of the image, and then he found the staff as if nothing existed. It passed from the right side to the left side, and the sadhu said, "God is without form, because if there is form, the staff cannot pass." Then he wanted to test it again to confirm. So now he wanted to pass the staff from left to the right. So he passed the staff. But as soon as the staff touched the image of the Lord, immediately it got stuck. It cannot move further. "Oh! God also is with form or without form." So instead of thinking, "God is with form or without form, with quality or without quality, with name or without name," all these are constructs of the mind. What should be our attitude? God has nothing to do with all these things. What we have to understand is it is my thought about God. If I am covered with the cloud "God is with form," then I see God with form. If I have another type of see-through cloud, then God is without form. So like that are our opinions. Sri Ramakrishna says, "Do not try to limit God. You go on praying to Him. Control your mind and purify yourself. And when your mind is pure, then the truth reveals itself," as we have just now seen. So this is the very practical philosophy. And one who is blessed by God, the God means the reality, is avihit by all these different types of opinions, asprashtaha. He is not touched by them. That means He is not what we think. But he who enadrishtaha, he who realizes God, he becomes sarvadruk, that means he knows the real truth, and he brahmavit, brahma eva bhavati, he becomes blessed, he becomes liberated. We will discuss further in our next class.