Mandukya Karika Lecture 121 on 20-September-2023

Full Transcript (Not Corrected)

So we continue the fourth chapter of the Mandukya Karikas, which is called Alatha Shanti Prakaranam. And this fourth chapter has 100 Karikas. And mostly it is refuting, while stating briefly, the real teaching of the Upanishad. But trying to refute all the other schools of philosophy, especially those who advocate creation, this world is real. In our last class, we were discussing the tenth shloka. Remember, this is not a mantra. This is a shloka or a Karika. This is written by Gaudapada.

जरामरणनिर्मुक्ताः सर्वे धर्माः स्वभावतः ।

जरामरणमिच्छन्तश्च्यवन्ते तन्मनीषया ॥ १० ॥

jarāmaraṇanirmuktāḥ sarve dharmāḥ svabhāvataḥ |

jarāmaraṇamicchantaścyavante tanmanīṣayā || 10 ||

Exactly, this reflects what Swami Vivekananda had been proclaiming from the beginning to the end. That is, each soul is potentially divine. The goal of life is to manifest this divinity within. And it can be manifested by following any particular Yoga, Karma, Raja, Bhakti and Jnana. So all the Jeevas are, by their very nature, not by birth, by very nature, free from old age and death. That means, birthless actually. But because of Jnana, ignorance, they think, as it were, they are subject to this and thus by this very thought. That means, we think we are the bodies and minds. This world is very real for us. This is the only reality. So they appear to deviate from their very nature. Meaning, we are bound. Because what we think our reality, world reality, is of what nature? Binding nature, consisting of birth, growth, experiences and death. So, that is why Swami Vivekananda's clarion call, Listen ye children of immortal bliss, Shunvantu Vishwe Amrutasya Putraah. So, why did Gaudapada Acharya state this particular 10th mantra? This is the truth. Nobody is born. Nobody is going to die. This is called Ajati Vada. And there are different schools, especially at that time.

Now, one question may come. What do we gain by studying these things now? Well, there are many schools of philosophy which accept what is called Parinama Vada. But there are some schools which are completely illogical. For example, one of the Yogachara school of Buddha says, there is no world, everything is an idea, a thought in the mind. This is called idealism. As against that, there are people who say the whole thing is realism. Everything is real. World is real, others are real, Jada is real, Chaitanya is real. The differences between objects is also real. Difference between all of us, that is living beings, that is also real. Many Jeevas are real. Everything is real. So Gaudapada wants to say, no, this is not the teaching of the Upanishads. So what do the Upanishads really teach? Upanishads means Vedanta. What do the Vedas or Veda, what does it teach? It tells that it divides people into two categories. Those who believe that the Srishti is real, birth is real, death is real, God is real, everything is real. We want to be as happy as possible, live as long as possible and seek more and more happiness. These are called realists. We can also call them materialists. But there are varieties of materialists. There are some people who want to live what they call a purely Bohemian life. That is, this matter alone is real and there is no afterbirth, etc. But Dvaithins as well as Vishishtadvaithins, they believe this world is very real. In fact, Vishishtadvaithins believe even dream is real and I cannot dispute that. Nobody can dispute that. What does it mean? Just as in the waking state, we think this waking state is real. So just similar way, so long as we are in a particular state, whether it is waking, dream or deep sleep, whichever state we are in, so long as that state lasts, we feel, we behave, we act and react as if that alone is the supreme reality. But God also on faith is accepted. Most people, they don't go for this intellectualism, called rationalism. Why? I'll give you a small example. We are all born and die. We are finite. This is everyone of our experience. But those who believe in God, we are only talking about those who believe in God. Nobody believes God is only in a particular place. And if anybody is in a particular place, then he should be necessarily limited. But nobody accepts that. God is everywhere. Even the most ignorant person, when he goes to Rameshwaram, he prays to God as if God is present. When he comes to Kashi, he prays to God as if Kashi is real. Wherever he goes, God is present. And even ignorant person doesn't say that one year back I visited Kashi and at that time God was 50 years old. And this year also I visited, now one year has passed, so He is 51 years. Nobody believes it. So God is all-pervading, God is infinite, God is also timeless. Even though most people cannot vocalize, verbalize and speak in such rational terms, but deep within them that faith is there. And is God born? No, He is unborn. So God is unborn, He is infinite, He is for all time changeless. This is what even the most ignorant person believes. What is our idea about or rather our experience? Our idea born of our experience in this world is everything is temporary. Every passing millisecond, everything is changing. Now that is a big problem because if we really believe and when we are asked, we state without the least hesitation, God created this world. If God created this world, how can an infinite God really create a finite world? A God who never changes, how could He create a changeful world? A God who is unborn, how can He create a world full of birth, death, etc.? A God who is all Ananda, how can He create so much of Dukkha? A God who is all good, how could He create a world which mostly seems to be full of evil? These questions, of course, do not arise in the minds of ordinary people. Is it necessary for God realization? No, it is enough to know there is a God and if we can obtain His grace, then we can be forever free from Samsara. That's all and that really works. But what are all these arguments for? So even Acharyas, as Swami Vivekananda had said, Vedas teach appropriate, suitable teachings for Dvaitins, Visishtadvaitins, and Advaitins. Every Sadhaka can be classified as a Dvaitin, Visishtadvaitin, or Advaitin, suitable for their development. Many times I had mentioned this one, will a Dvaitin get Moksha? Yes. Will a Visishtadvaitin firmly believe that we go to Vaikuntha and there we will be free from all problems? Will he get? Yes, definitely he will get. The Advaitins may argue it is impossible, but intellectual conviction is one thing, actual fact is something quite different. But unfortunately, we are living in a world of what is called reason. That is why many historians, especially Will Durant had called this age, the age of reason. First we want to be convinced rationally and then only we want to accept what goes beyond rationality. So we have to accept that fact.

Now, important point to remember is Gaudapada said, we are all by nature Atmans, we are birthless. That means we don't have growth, old age, death, Sarve Dharma. Here Dharma means, it's a word borrowed from Buddhist, it means all Jeevas. Every Jeeva is an Amrita Putra. But in his time, you may ask, why is Gaudapada Acharya spending so much of time, wasting even our time refuting other schools of Vedanta? First point is that during his time, these debates were common and otherwise he could not have even posited this kind of theories. He was very familiar and many people believed in it and so he has to refute it, rationally establish Advaita Vedanta. And Advaita Vedanta has several schools again and some of the schools are very mild. For example, the school followed by Sridhara Acharya and Madhusodhana Acharya, they are Bhakti Mishrita Gnanam, rather more Bhakti than Gnanam. That is why Madhusodhana Saraswati can tell Dvaitam Advaita Adapisundaram. Once you understand the reality that living in this world, we have to positively accept only Dvaitism, duality. Why? Because worshipping God gives us more joy than anything else. So this is what Sri Ramakrishna's view, so long as we have got the idea, world is real, my body, mind are real and my experiences are real, Bhakti Marga is more suitable, especially for those people whose emotions run havoc, whose emotions run out of control. For such people, earning all those emotions, combining them and directing them towards God is the best path. There are some people who are always restless, even when they sit, their knees are moving, their legs are moving, their hands are moving and even though I have seen many people, bald headed people scratching their head, at least if there is so much of hair, some irritation will be there, some insects may be there, I don't know what he is trying to do. Okay, so whoever has got a particular faculty, he should follow that one. But for most people, Bhakti Yoga combined of course with Karma Yoga, Puja is a kind of Karma Yoga or listening to talks is Karma Yoga. Everything, every little helps, this is one of the B and P saying, every little, if you can save a penny, that also helps. So Bhakti Yoga is most suitable, but we are educated and we are so-called rational people. Not really, I don't find many rational people. It is an irrational statement to say that most of us are rational. Of course this was stated by Aristotle.

Anyway, so in our last class, I introduced two important, rather three important schools of philosophy, Nyaya, Vaiseshika is one and then Sankhya and Yoga is another and Mimamsa, Purva Mimamsa, those who believe in rituals etc. These three are going to be discussed now until 23rd Shloka. Now in our last class, we saw first school of philosophy is Nyaya Vaiseshika. What is it called? Asat Karyavada. What is Asat Karyavada? That is anything in this world, say for example, a pot. When a pot is seen, is it a new pot that has come out of clay or is it completely a non-existent pot, there was no pot and suddenly it came out. It is irrational to think something non-existent suddenly becomes existent. It is like a barren woman bearing children and flowers grown in the sky, a hare suddenly grows two horns etc. So it is impossible, it is a very weak school. But the people, the only scholars actually remember the people who argue, they are called pundits. And these pundits themselves when it comes to eating and drinking, their school of philosophy doesn't work. It's only scholarly debate that these people advocate these kind of arguments. So this is Asat, means something non-existing, Karyavada means Karya means effect. So a non-existing pot has suddenly come into existence. To refute that, we can take one. That means what, a pot need not come out of clay, a clay pot can come out of gold, out of wood, out of anything because it was non-existing. There is no relationship between clay and clay pot. So that is easily dismissed, it is very weak. If we are not potentially divine, we can never become divine. So if the seed of a bitter gourd, if it can become, suddenly produce a first-class Banganapalli mango, that is called Asat Karyavada. Even out of sand, oil can be produced. How wonderful it is, you know! Nowadays, because of this energy crisis, everybody is deeply worried what is going to happen when this oil reserves are exhausted. But nuclear energy is very dangerous. But sand, any amount of sand is there. So the sand is not the only thing. So if you can produce oil out of sand, that is according to Asat Karyavada, anything can be produced, not only, don't confine, you expand your imagination. So you are on this shore, suddenly you are very hungry and then you want to eat specially Kesi Das Rasogollas. Immediately you take some sand and immediately I want Kesi Das Rasogolla. It must come according to Asat Khyati Vada. Oh, you want golden ornaments? So enough amount of gold is there in this world, if you can produce it out of sand. But if you can produce it out of sand, you can also produce it out of water. All the big, big oceans are there. So you take a bucket of water and a tanker of water and store it. And then you say, let it be working as petrol, as a diesel and so there would be no quarrel at all. People will be bored to death and just to get rid of that boredom, they will be fighting each other. So it is said, you know, the Roman mythologies say, they used to hunt wild boars. So Swami Vivekananda mentions it, every morning they are in the hell. No, let us say heaven. They get up in the morning after good rest and they are rearing for action. So they all take these arrows, bows and other instruments. And it is full of forest area, plenty of wild boars are there. The most boring story...So they go on hunting and the old boars also, very ferocious, there will be huge fight and so many people will die. And at last, they kill some wild boar, and come home and then they cook it, they eat it, they go to bed. And then miraculously, everybody recovers and the cooked boars also miraculously come to life and they go back to the forest again to start again. I don't know how long they will put up with it. Day after day if you do something, it is the most boring thing in this world, even it will be hunting for boars. Anyway, if anything can be created out of anything, that is called Asat Khyati Vada. This is main teaching of Nyaya Vaiseshika.

What about the Sankhya Yoga? That's called Sat Karya Vada, Sat means a cause, existent cause. Only from an existent cause, something which is close to the existent cause will come out for some peculiar reason. So from the clay only clay pot can come, from gold only golden ornament can come. This is how we have to understand it. So is something new or is it something non-existing? It is not non-existing, it is existing. What is existing? For example pot is existing in the clay. Naturally some wise fellow cracks, what does he say? If it is already existing, where is the question of producing it. Then Sankhya Yoga people, their reply is, no, no, I do not mean that, it is existing in a lump form. Now what happens, the lump is changed into a particular shape, that is called pot. This is called Parinama Vada. Parinama Vada means what, that the shape is Nama, a Rupa comes, shape is changed and a particular name is given and for a particular purpose. I explained it in my last class. But that is not the real problem. The real problem is these Sankhya Yoga people, Sat Karya Vada what they say is, is that the cause is Mula Karana, Prakruti is the original cause. And this Prakruti is unborn, is changeless, is eternal, is infinite. That is where the problem comes. What is it? First of all they say, the cause, the effect and the cause are not non-different. So this is where the problem comes. If it is non-different, then if the cause is unborn, and the effect also is unborn, the Srishti will not come at all. Suppose for some reason you imagine that it comes, it should be the same, a golden gold, a lump of gold is lying down and then somebody comes and then shapes it in a particular way. That is called, let us say, bangle. Now the bangle and the gold, what is the difference? The Mula, the material never changes. The gold, lumpish gold and golden ornament, both are gold only. What is the change? A lump shape has now become a bangle shape, a necklace shape, a ring shape, etc., etc., So that is alright. That is what we say that. But then what happens, change has taken place. What shape, what change has taken place? The lump has now become a bangle shape. Is it a change or not? It is a change. And then we say, the bangle is born and then after some time, the bangle will be dead also. So it becomes old, it can be melted and then again it goes back into its form. So continuously, there was no bangle, only lumpish gold. And suddenly a bangle is there, and the time is marked, and then it goes on becoming affected. And after some time it loses its bangle shape, it goes back. Is it a change or not? Yes, it is a change, everybody is forced to accept it. Then now Gaudapada or the Advaitavadin or the Ajativadin, he comes out and questions, don't you see the fallacy, illogicality. What is the illogical you see. You say, what is the cause of this bangle? Gold, that is the cause. And what is the nature of the cause? It is unborn, etc., Here we are not talking about the gold and bangle, clay and pot. We are talking about the creation of the world. So God is, Brahman is unborn, infinite, eternal, changeless. Prakruti is Ajam, Nityam, Shashvatam. That is their theory. If this is true, this world has come out of the Prakruti, Prakruti evolves into Mahat, into mind, Pancha Bhutas and everything, infinite variety of objects. So what did you say? Prakruti is changeless, Prakruti is unborn, Prakruti is eternal. Now what about the world? Just the opposite. So is that reasonable, is that rational? According to your own statement, the cause and effect are exactly the same thing. How do you answer it? They can't really answer it. This is the weakness in Satkarya Vada. So this Satkarya Vada is actually an outcome of the Mimamsa cause. So what do they say, that is what we are going to see in the future.

Now let us move on, in this 11th, 12th and 13th, Gaudapada wants to refute what is called, already the Nyaya Vaiseshka Asatkarya being weak, defeated, thrashed out by the Satkarya Vada of the Sankhya and Yoga. So Gaudapada need not do anything. Already this first round the opponent is eliminated. Now the second round comes. What is this second round? Between Advaita and this Sankhya Vada, what is called Pranama Vada. There are some things are there, but to understand this properly, just now I told you, the Sankhya Yoga people, Satkaryavadins, they posit this theory. We have always to keep that in mind. What is that? That the cause and effect are exactly the same. Whatever is the cause, the effect is also the same, whatever is the effect is also same. What is the first fallacy that comes? They are same, why do you give two names? One is called Karanam, another is called Karyam, if there is no difference. Then they come out, no, no, Nama Rupa is the difference. Alright, even if Nama Rupa is there, is it same or is it different? Is there any difference between cause and effect or cause and effect are same? They maintain cause and effect are the same even though Nama Rupa has changed. For example, milk has changed into curds. This is called Parinama Vada, transformation theory. Now milk in this example is transformed into curds. Now certainly nobody will equate curds with milk. Two different names are given. That means there are terrible differences are there. So, the milk will be watery, liquid, the curds will be, I am not talking about Nachiketha's father's cows, I am talking about foreign cows, thick. Greek yogurt they call it, very thick. That is one. And the shape of the liquid is different, shape of the curds is different. Milk is always sweet and yogurt is always sour. And in fact it is made sour only because sour thing is added to it. What is that sour thing? Earlier curds is added to milk to make it sour. Anyway there are differences are there. How do you claim that milk and curds are exactly the same? But those fellows according to their theory is not correct at all. Now going a little bit further or deeper, Prakruti from Prakruti has transformed itself into this Parinama, into this Jeeva, Jagat etc. Prakruti is unborn, Vikruti is born, Prakruti is one infinite, this is all finite, each different from each other. Prakruti is timeless and birth, growth, old age, death is all under the influence of time, desha paricheda, kala paricheda, vastu paricheda. How do you say these two are equal? This is the essence of the what is called 11th, 12th and 13th.

So the 11th Karika goes like this,

कारणं यस्य वै कार्यं कारणं तस्य जायते ।

जायमानं कथमजं भिन्नं नित्यं कथं च तत् ॥ ११ ॥

kāraṇaṃ yasya vai kāryaṃ kāraṇaṃ tasya jāyate |

jāyamānaṃ kathamajaṃ bhinnaṃ nityaṃ kathaṃ ca tat || 11 ||

The Satkaryavadin, that is Sankhya Yogavadi, according to whom the cause itself is the effect, maintains that the cause itself is born as the effect, cause itself is born as the effect. But Gaudapada questions. How is it possible for the cause to be unborn? If Prakruti is said to be unborn, then how is it possible for this world, but it itself is born? I don't know how much I am able to convey to you. Very subtle logic is involved there. That means at the same mouthing, sentence, breathing, you are telling that Prakruti is born and at the same time unborn also. The unborn is born, what do you say? Because there is a change. So if there is a change, if the change is born or not? It is born. Change requires time or not? Yes, any change can happen only in time. Therefore your theory that Prakruti is unborn, it is falsified. So how is it possible for the cause, means Prakruti to be unborn, if it is said to be born as the effect? Effect means the Srishti. Srishti is Prakruti has become Srishti. If Srishti, there is so much of, it is born, then how do you say the unborn is born and at the same time remains unborn? How again is it said that eternal, you said it is Nithyam, eternal. What is Nithyam? Prakruti is Nithyam, Karanam is Nithyam, if Karanam is Nithyam, that our birth etc. These are called modifications, Parinama. Birth is a Parinama, change. Growth is a change. In fact there is nothing changeless in this world. Time never pauses even for a billy second. So with every passing, changing time, everything is changing. Our body is changing, mind is changing, world is changing, experience is changing, everything is changing. So now Gaudapada is telling, with this your claim is falsified. So he is pointing out to this. If the cause changes itself into effect, change means finitude, that which changes is a perishable substance. You see, a child is born and he becomes an adolescent. What happened to the child? Dead. Thus Gaudapada asks, how can the Sankhya people maintain that their theory the effect is born out of the cause, and yet insist that the cause Prakruti is absolute and eternal. If you say that it is not eternal, I committed a mistake. Then there will be some other problem will come. So neither can it be true to believe that the cause is identical with the effect. That is what these Satkarivadins tell, that cause and effect, Karanam and Kariyam, are one and the same, so that is also not possible. The moment we say there are two, cause and effect, there must be a relationship, which is first, which is next. This logical fallacy will come later on. But there are two things are there. What is the relationship with the lumpish gold and the bangle? What is the relationship? The form is. One is without form, another is with form. So that is what this is. The cause will have to become finite, and anything finite is perishable, and we are all in a finite world. Can you point out one thing which is within our world and which is not perishable? That is why we say in the marriage vows, they take you know, previously until death do us a part, does us a part, until one of us die, we will remain husband and wife. Now they have slightly modified until death or divorce, whichever takes place.

Whether we say the world is nothing, that in other ways of telling, Vishnu has created this world. And we have to say, according to this Satkaryavadins, Vishnu himself has become the world. What is the nature of Vishnu? He is unborn, He is infinite, the very name Vishnu says all pervading If Vishnu is all pervading and He became the world. First of all the world is not all pervading, secondly Vishnu is changeless, that means beyond time. Whereas this world is everything is within time, time means change. So whether you say Vishnu is one with world or world is one with Vishnu, in both ways Narayana is completely murdered. If you think properly, you will understand it, with all the arguments that I have been trying to convey to you. If Narayana has become the world, he has changed, that way Narayana is no more Narayana. Milk is no more milk, it has become curds. But if you say that world is Narayana, what is the nature of the world? It is born and it is changing and it is limited, finite, so Narayana is also finite, Narayana is also born, Narayana is also changing. Either way we murder Narayana, there is no doubt about it, whether we say the world is nothing but Narayana or we say that Narayana is nothing but the world. In either of cases we have to accept that the world has been created from Narayana will be to murder Narayana. But the Lord, the supreme reality Narayana would become a finite mortal if we were to accept that the world of plurality has been created.

Now 12th Karika.

कारणाद्यद्यनन्यत्वमतः कार्यमजं यदि ।

जायमानाद्धि वै कार्यात्कारणं ते कथं ध्रुवम् ॥ १२ ॥

kāraṇādyadyananyatvamataḥ kāryamajaṃ yadi |

jāyamānāddhi vai kāryātkāraṇaṃ te kathaṃ dhruvam || 12 ||

If as you say the cause is non-different, we already discussed it but we are quoting it again. The cause is non-different from the effect, then the effect also must be unborn. Because what is the nature of the gold? The golden ornament will be exactly of the same nature. But we have proved a lump has now taken a particular shape, not one shape, millions, billions of shapes it can take. So that which does not have a form has now become of infinite forms. That itself is going against its nature. So if the cause is non-different from the effect, both are same. This is the argument of the Sankhyas or Satkaryavadins. Then if the cause is unborn, the effect also must be unborn. Further how can the cause be permanent, if it be non-different from the effect which is born? Because if a change has taken place, then that is changeful. Wherever change takes place, that object is called changeful. So as you say, if the unchanging Prakruti, according to Sankhya, the world has come from Prakruti, of course with the presence of Purusha. Now if this world is many and is changing, how can if the cause is permanent, so it be non-different from the effect which is born? That means if both are same, the cause is unborn, what is called permanent, the effect also should be permanent. If it is permanent it cannot be born, it cannot die, it cannot become old, etc. So there is no way we justify the stand. The world has been caused by the supreme reality which is eternal and unborn and changeless and infinite. Then the immortal reality, from that the finite and the immortal have emerged. It is impossible! Out of the Lord, the world cannot come, no barren mother can ever deliver any children. From the conscious supreme Chaitanyam, that is Bhagawan, never can be insentient. Our body is insentient, our mind is insentient, even if we do not understand. There are stones, there is clod of earth, there are mountains, the sun, the moon, the constellations, the galaxies and the waters, according to modern everything seems to be jada, inert. Where from they have come? The scriptures tell us from the divine Lord. And this is what the Sankhya Yogis also they tell. Everything has come from pure Chaitanyam. But what we see, whatever has come from pure Chaitanyam is non-Chaitanyam, the pure Prakruti is infinite. What do we see? Just the opposite, finite, many many many uncountable things. The Prakruti is Nityam, eternal, but everything in this world is subject to change, that means non-eternal. Just the opposite, complete opposite of what the Prakruti is. So it cannot be accepted that the cause and the effect are same. The cause and effect are completely different. So Shankaracharya, I don't know how he gives, but he gives this example. It is a beautiful example. It is absurd to expect to cut a living hen into two parts, one part for cooking and eating and another part keeping it for laying eggs for the tomorrow. What does it mean? How does he know about it? Has he eaten eggs? We don't know. But he must have observed. He says no no, I was observing from my neighbour and it is never possible. If you cut any chicken into two, it is dead, it cannot lay eggs, it can be food. If you don't cut it may give eggs, but if you cut it cannot, it can be only eaten only once. So it is like saying I am unborn, I am also born in the form of the world. I am eternal and I am also impermanent, I am infinite, I am also finite. This is what the essence of the Pratha Karika.

What about the 13th?

अजाद्वै जायते यस्य दृष्टान्तस्तस्य नास्ति वै ।

जाताच्च जायामानस्य न व्यवस्था प्रसज्यते ॥ १३ ॥

ajādvai jāyate yasya dṛṣṭāntastasya nāsti vai |

jātācca jāyāmānasya na vyavasthā prasajyate || 13 ||

There is no illustration to support the view of him who says that the effect is borne from an unborn cause. But if it be said that the effect is produced from a cause which is itself born, then it leads to infinite regress, which is called ad infinitum. Now what does it mean? Aja means unborn, that is this world is born, asya dṛṣṭāntastasya nāsti vai, there is no example in this world which is born. So a little bit involved type of logic, I will try to make it as easy as possible. You take the example of a plant. You see a mango tree, for example, in front of you. And then suppose a child asks, Papa where from this mango tree has come? You have to say that I got a mango seed, so from that mango seed I put it in the ground, and slowly plant has come. Now you observe carefully when you put the seed in the ground, the seed has to die before the plant is born. That is changing. Now that is not the real point. The real point is where from the seed has come? Previous mango tree. Where from the previous mango tree has come? From the previous seed. So this is what you are trying to say. So if you say that from the unborn this has come, there is no example. Wherever you see smoke, you infer fire. Even if I don't see fire, I infer. Wherever you see, let us say a cow, you will see it is born out of a seed. And then where from that seed has come? The seed also comes from another cow, like that. So I am born from my mother, my mother is born from her mother, her mother is born from her mother. What are we talking about? This is the example. Whatever we see in this world, it is countless, one comes from the other, the other comes from the same. Like that the cause comes from the effect and the effect comes from the cause. What am I talking about? That the mango tree has come from seed. So the seed is the cause, mango tree is the effect. But then, in its turn, the seed is the effect, which came from its cause. Which is the cause? Another mango tree. And that mango tree, is it a cause? It is also an effect because it came out from its seed, so ad infinitum. In this world, you don't find a single thing where cause is one, unborn and everything is born from there. This is what Gaudapada wants to say, ajādvai jāyate yasya dṛṣṭāntastasya. Drstantaha means you will not get one simple example, which is completely the first cause, causeless cause, and from there something which is changing all the time is born. That is, there is only first time, there is an eternal mango seed, and from that eternal mango seed any number of eternal mango trees or infinite mango trees are being born, you will never see. If there is a chicken, it came from egg. And if there is an egg, is it the mula karana? No, it has come from another. So you are saying, we don't find any of this thing, but if you say, if you take this view, that the cause is an effect in its turn, this world is an effect, it came from some cause and that cause has come from its mother, from its seed, which is an effect, so cause from effect, effect from cause, like that, the previous. Let us say, mango tree is the cause of the mango seed and that mango tree, which is the effect, that itself has come out from its mother, which is another mango seed. And that mango seed, which is the effect of the mango tree, has become effect. So effect becomes cause, that cause becomes effect, that effect becomes cause ad infinitum and that is also not acceptable at all. How do we solve this problem?

Today, I will stop here. I think enough heat is being produced. But what is the Advaitin's view of creation? Simple, Advaitin says there is no creation at all. So therefore, I don't need to give you any example. Then what is this? Appears to be. Just as your dream appears to be real, but even that example is defective example, because dream came from the waking person and that waking person came from another fellow's dream, dream girl and dream boy, like that it goes on ad infinitum. So, what is the essence of what we discussed? Satkarya Vada is full of fallacies, defects, illogical, fallacious, unacceptable. So, first Asatkarya Vada was defeated by Satkarya Vada saying it is illogical, unacceptable. So, then who is logical and acceptable? Satkarya Vada and Gaudapada says, now pointing out your Satkarya Vada is as illogical, as fallacious as the Asatkarya Vada. Then what is your view? Our view is that there is no creation at all, problem finished. We will talk about it in the next class.