Mandukya Karika Lecture 125 on 18-October-2023

Full Transcript (Not Corrected)

We are studying the last chapter of the Mandukya Karika, which is called Alata Shanti, extinguishing of the firebrand. So in this we have dealt with until 23rd Karika. So from 14th to 23rd, Gaudapada wants to refute the Mimamsa views that there is no creation at all. Because creation means there must be a cause. Creation is an effect. So there must be a cause. You show us what is the cause. And Mimamsa caste cannot show the cause because this birth, which indicates Samsara, bondage or world. Birth means Samsara. Samsara means world. World means it is the effect. So each one of us have got our own world depending upon how we view our body and mind. These are the colored glasses. And there is no external world which is separable from our world. Even our thinking that I look upon you as objectively is only purely a subjective view. It is my view what I think about you. The whole world is my view. This is called Drishti, Srishti, Vada. I see it and how do I see? Not as it is but as I perceive through my colored body and mind. Very practical philosophy. But if we want to get out of this world then we have to see there is no world at all because one fact is very obvious to each one of us. What is it? If I have no mind, there is no world which means there is no body, there is no mind and there is no bondage, there is no Sukha, Dukha. And what remains? Most of us think if there is no mind then Shunyam. Only emptiness is the result. But the scripture contradicts and says, scripture contradicts many things, especially two things. What are the two things? That this world is full of many things. And the scripture tells us there is only one reality and even that usage of the word one is only from the mind's point of view, transactional point of view. So there is only Brahman and Brahman is not one. That is why Na Dvaitam is Advaitam. Not even two. Do you mean by that one? No. We should not use neither one nor two nor many. That is why double negative, not two. So we have to understand these are the limitations of the language. So what remains? According to the scripture, two things are negated. What are the two things? That I see many, so the whole world is consisting of many. And let us always recollect, though we are repeating hundreds of times, Vijatiya Bheda, Sajjatiya Bheda, Swagata Bheda. Everything is different from everything else. Two hairs are different from each other. Two leaves are different from each other. So scripture tells, no, there is only one thing. Just as it is an example to make us understand, you see a billion things on a cinema screen, but the only reality is one and it is called light. This is the first thing. There is no reality. It is Advaita. What is the second thing? That when we don't have the mind, we are under the illusion that everything is non-existent. No, there is something which is existent, purely existent and it is Sat, Chit, Ananda. So these are the two facts we get from the scriptures. Now, if there is only Brahman, what is this world? So it is a Kalpana. It is an imagination. It doesn't really exist. That is the contention of Advaitavadins. Remember, we are talking about only Advaitavada. Gaudapada was an extreme Advaitin. There is no compromise with Bhakti, etc. So he says that Ajati Vada, no birth at all, no creation at all. So for that, he first negated Sat Karya Vada, Asat Karya Vada of the Nyaya Vaiseshika, then negated Sat Karya Vada of the Sankhya Yoga, then negated the six possible reasons that the Mimamsakas give that there is a world and these are the followers of Karmakanda. So by giving six reasons, he says that even to posit that there is a Samsara, it is not possible. And what was the conclusion? I know you are all wonderful. I know that some of you, because of some emergency situations like the war, forget all these things. I am just reminding you. That's all. But what is it? The Mimamsakas believe that the world exists truly. It is a Karya. There is a Karana. And wherever there is a Karya, there must be a Karana. Wherever there is an effect, there must be a cause. And whenever we posit cause and effect, there must be a relationship between cause and effect. So how many things? Cause is one. Effect is another. Relationship between cause and effect is another. And through six reasons, Gaudapada completely squashes all the views of the Mimamsakas. These views. To establish what? Ajati Vada. Now he has to contend. During his time, Buddhism was very very popular. So there were four schools of Buddhism. I introduced you. Buddhism after Buddha, split into two. Mahayana and Hinayana. The great way, the inferior way. And who says the inferior way? Hinayana is translated. Yana means way. Hina means inferior. Nobody will say I am an inferior person. This is a term purely created by Mahayana. We are superior like that. So Mahayana has resulted in two schools of thinking. School of philosophy means school of thinking. School of thinking means where they use extensive reason to prove how illogical we are. So Hinayana has split into Sautrantika and Vaibhashika. And Mahayana split into Yogachara and Madhyamika. So from Karika 24 to Karika practically 29 or 30, Gaudapada is trying to establish all the four are completely wrong. How does he approach? First of all, he approaches. He says that between Yogachara and Sautrantika and Vaibhashika, first there is a debate. And he makes Yogachara win over both the schools of Sautrantika and Vaibhashika. And then he pits Yogachara with Madhyamika, which was developed in the middle of the 10th or 12th century by a very acutely sharp intellectual called Nagarjuna. And his Vada is called Madhyamika. Madhyamika means middle path. Middle path is okay. Golden path is okay. But the abstruse logic he uses is absolutely un-understandable. So what is this Madhyamika view? Madhyamika view is everything is nothing. Finally, Shunyavada. So for that, I have given a whole class, last class, introduction. But very briefly to recollect, Henayana has two schools, Sautrantika and Vaibhashika. What do the Sautrantika people say? They say there is an external world. How do we know? Because if there is no tree, for example, I could not have perceived a tree. This is first reasoning. What is the second reasoning? That suppose there is no, let us say, two things are there to clarify the matter. I see a tiger and I see a beautiful mango tree and it is summer season. It is full of sweet fruits and the tree does not belong to anybody, public property. So what happens? I see the tree and I see the fruits. I feel tempted to eat. So I just go and like Krishna, for Krishna, the mango fruits have come within his reach. So also I get all these fruits hanging down. Or there is a hill just below. I climb the hill and I can catch hold of any number of mangoes. How wonderful! I will just modify the example for our enjoyment a little. That tree actually belongs to somebody whom I hate and that fellow is absent. That is why they say, nothing tastes like a stolen fruit. So I go and start enjoying it. Now what is happening? Two things are happening. I see the trees first and I go and enjoy the fruit and it is giving me happiness, pleasure, joy. So two things, perceiving the tree and experiencing the result of interacting with that tree. So the Sautrantikas, they say that if there were no tree, I could never have seen. So could you not have imagined? This is a great psychological fact. What is it? Every imagination is based upon some fact. You can never imagine anything. So even if you have to imagine a Martian, you have to imagine that he is like a human being but a very odd human being, peculiar human being. He looks more like a dead body. You must have a fact. So if the tree was not a fact, you could not have experienced it. But they add an addenda, add something to this first fact. What is the first fact? There is a fact, there is a tree. Now there are many trees. That's why I am able to say this is a neem tree, this is a coconut tree, this is a mango tree, this is an apple tree, etc. So variety of facts. How can I have experience of varieties of facts? It is impossible if the world is not able to. So directly I contact varieties of objects existing, really existing in the external world, first fact. And as a result of this transaction, I get some results in my mind, feelings, joy, happiness, feeling of loss, feeling of gain, etc. So this is the view of the first school of Henayana called Sautrantika. And then comes Vaivasika. And they consider themselves a little more, much more intelligent than Sautrantikas. They say, they also say there is an external world and it is real, a real existing world exactly. So how is it? It is there. External world is there. But then what is the difference? Vaivasika say, you cannot directly know. You can only infer by experiencing that there is something there. You can only infer about it. Otherwise it is not possible. And that is what these people are talking about. This is the difference. I hope you get the difference. Sautrantikas say there is an external world. I really contact it and therefore I experience it and therefore it exists. They are the realists. But the Vaivasikas say we are also realists. There is an external world but we cannot know the external. The Sautrantikas say I see a tree, I hear a sound, I smell a very fragrant flower. But these Vaivasikas say yes, the world is there but you can only infer it. Anumaya. How? Let your sense organs go, bring the information in, present it to the mind. It is like saying you keep a mirror in front of you and that mirror is reflecting the external world and you are seeing just like on your screen monitor of the phone or TV, we see a cricket match but we are not directly seeing the cricket match. We are only inferring. Really beautiful intellectual thoughts, these things. And that is what is happening. We cannot really directly see. Now, this is the Vaivasikas view. Both are called realists. Both accept the existence of the external world. What is the difference? Sautrantikas say directly we come into contact with the external world and Vaivasikas say indirectly we come into contact with the external world. So, the only difference is direct experience, indirect or inferred experience. This is the difference. Now Yogachara fellow comes and says no, how do you know there is a tree? Because you are aware there is a tree. How do you know it? By eating a mango. How do you know you are feeling happy? Your mind has undergone a change. So, how do you know? Because you know your consciousness identifying itself with the mind and when the antahkarana or mind feels happy or unhappy there is a corresponding change between the awareness and that vritti what is called mentation in the mind and so your consciousness alone is the reality is called Yogachara and your antahkarana is not true and not only that that is the first point that consciousness alone is real everything else is unreal. It is your consciousness and what is the nature of consciousness? To know oneself or what changes are undergoing in the consciousness is the very nature that is the natural talent or characteristic of this consciousness. To know that is the nature of consciousness. So everything is consciousness chaitanyam only and that is also kshanika because it is changing. Now I am happy. Now I am unhappy. So now my mind thinks it has seen a mango tree next second it forgets the mango tree and I see an apple tree next second I see a tiger so your consciousness is also first sees a mango through the vritti and then sees an apple tree that is the second vritti replacing the first vritti and it sees a tiger and this is the third vritti replacing every other vritti. So it is a kshanika that is your consciousness is changing all the time. So this is the view held by Yogachara school consciousness is everything and these are called idealists that is idea as enveloped by consciousness alone is the reality and nothing else is real that is the view of this Yogachara. Now comes the fourth one the school of philosophy very astute very high and then these Yogachara people those who follow they are called kshanikavadins I will just briefly give you something so Advaitin has to temporarily conquer or accept yes yes bravo Yogachara you have defeated Sutrantika and Vaivasika I am with you and Yogachara feels very happy and then Gaudapada turns now let us fight but before that you will this is the third round you won second round you will have to compete with Madhyamika and then if you can whoever defeats and I will contend with that person and takes away everything so now the second round about or boxing is between Yogachara and Madhyamika but the Yogachara says everything is consciousness Gaudapada or Advaitin we say yes bravo yes everything is Chaitanyam but what do we say Brahman alone is the Sathyam whereas you say that consciousness alone is real but there seems to be a tremendous difference of opinion between what I mean by consciousness and what you mean by consciousness what do you mean by consciousness Kshanika that is if there is a change in your mind a different thought and so many thoughts are coming every thought produces a temporary consciousness awareness and so the awareness is Kshanika means ever changing so how does the Advaitin content with that says ok do you see this mango tree yes yes and do you see this apple tree yes yes and then do you remember you have seen that other tree look back yes I recognize it is a mango tree aha so first time when you saw mango tree the awareness of the mango tree the idea of the mango tree which is Kshanika it leaves an impression that is what you say and it disappeared now how do you know that it is the same mango tree because according to you your consciousness which recognizes the mango tree is dead a new consciousness has come further this stupid Kshanikavadi gives proudly thinking that he can defeat Advaitin he says similarity is there it is not exactly the same mango tree it is a different mango tree and is there logic in it there is logic in it what is the logic we also say everything is Kshanika everything is changing every billy second every trilly second everything is changing so what you say that is the same mango tree I have been seeing since childhood statement transactionally is right but in reality it is wrong because at that time it was small and this time it is quite big old and some branches have gone it is not the same old man your grandfather has changed a lot now by now so it is not the same Kshanika we also accept it but what is the problem the problem is that how do you recognize it is the same similarity now Advaitin catches hold of him so even to recognize it is similar you should somebody should be there who remembers I saw that mango tree and this mango tree is also similar to that mango tree similarity suppose you have seen a person and you are mistaking this is a person I know I played with him and then when you go and ask there is no relationship this person looks similar but not the same similarity and sameness are completely different so you might say person whom you know exactly same person or he might look similar that is how we mistake you know these political leaders especially dictators they have 15 or 20 lookalikes so when they are suspecting some murder is being hatched against them and they appear this fellow is probably is murdered and then the other fellow is gleeful that we eliminated and next second this fellow comes you have killed somebody like me he is lookalike he is not the same fellow so this similarity doesn't work because whether you see the same object or similar object there must be somebody who has seen the previous one who is seeing now who will see tomorrow also there must be a permanent consciousness to recognize it is the same beautiful what is called reply by the Advaitin of course Kshanikavade what he says everything is Kshanika consciousness is also Kshanika Advaitin doesn't say even to know that everything is Kshanika there must be somebody permanent say and that thought was Kshanika the previous thought was Kshanika the thought before was also Kshanika so to witness the Kshanika and to recognize it it is Kshanika there must be a permanent entity and that is the nature of Chaitanyam Brahman whatever it is so what is the difference the consciousness posited by the Yogachara school is changing every millisecond whereas the consciousness posited by Advaitin is Ekaha Nityaha so Ajaha Puranaha Shashvataha so this is the difference so Kshanikavade cannot stand these arguments this is logic remember but very good for sharpening our brains it may not help us in what we call spiritual progress but definitely it helps us two things intellectual development first helps us to understand things properly rightly better way deeper way secondly so long as we are engaged in intellectual topics then our mind is prevented from going to other irrelevant, useless, dangerous subjects thoughts that is a great benefit by itself that is why Krishna Maharaj used to say every spiritual aspirant must develop the intellect so that it prevents a person from sliding to the nefarious worlds inferior worlds it stops midway the mind will not go below that okay anyway now the fourth school of Buddhism it is called Madhyamika what does it say what is the difference between Yogachara and Madhyamika at least Yogachara says there is a consciousness even though it is Kshanika but Madhyamika says consciousness itself is Mithya there is no consciousness then what is the reality Shunyam is the reality Shunyam is the only reality so Shunyam ultimately what should be our goal become Shunyam complete non-existence then you will not have Brahmananda but you will not have any problem just like when you are in deep sleep there is no problem you don't know you are in deep sleep only others know that you are in deep sleep but that is their problem not your problem at all so it is this that Advaitin finally he has to contend with and say if you say everything is Shunyam then you are telling you are talking you are thinking about Shunyam there must be somebody who is thinking about Shunyam who is witnessing the Shunyam who is observing everything that the Shunyam this what is called empty brain is doing so this is the final thing that he contends with now what am I raving about all this time from Karika 24 to 29 Gaudapada he briefly puts these four schools of philosophy and dismisses them that it is contrary to one's experience even to think about Shunyam Shunyam means nothingness pure zero why is it so because everybody what is our experience every creature even the lowest creature what does it say first it says two things what is it let me never suffer let me be always happy what is the meaning of always this is a teleological you can't remove it and 24 hours from as long as you are not in deep sleep in fact even deep sleep is also a quest for these three only what do you mean by that because in the waking state we work very hard it is an active state semi active state is called dream state whether it is waking or dream our every effort if you analyze how to avoid dukkham and how to obtain more happiness first quest is getting rid of suffering second is how can I be even more happy than what I am now this is called why is this this desire never disappears even for a single second this is where what we call deep sleep comes in kicks in as they say what does the deep sleep say it says that you get the greatest bliss never before experienced in any state of waking or dream you get we get in the deep sleep state understand it properly the bliss that we get the peace we get we overcome both dualities of sukha and dukkha and obtain such a long time usually you know we should not use the word six hours seven hours but from the time we forget our body mind to the time we become aware of body mind that is up to the time of waking state from the end of the dream state always we end up with the dream state only and from until the time we wake up how many practically whole night is gone and whole night sukham aham aswap sam this sukha so many in fact somebody said that man even poorest man works whole day only to enjoy this incomparable state of bliss that one gets in the deep sleep state forgetting the body and mind this is the most marvelous statement forgetting body and mind is called sukha and i explained many times i hope you remember you must remember if you don't remember you are not listening to the class properly very definition of sukha is going beyond time space and causation so if you remember then it is kshanika sukha if you don't remember for such a long time from the waking state of point of view 5 hours 6 hours 7 hours 8 hours whatever number of hours we are everybody is free from suffering and that freedom from suffering and that highest type of bliss we get barring samadhi that is called sushupti sukha that is why very aptly in vedanta what is it called anandamaya kosha so that is what is most important in this world that we are thinking about it so this is the natural condition of every human being nobody says let me never be let me be shunyam nobody will wish and whole life we proves that we want to be we want to be alive this is the answer of how advaitin confronts this madhyamika who posits who is a shunyavadi who says ultimately the only thing that remains is shunyam nothingness emptiness and for that he contents very nicely and he says this shunyavadi what buddha called shunyam to be more accurate followers of buddha called shunyam is nothing but the indescribable brahman so what do the wise madhyamikas really feel that ultimately what remains is indescribable and that is mano vacha agocharam namo namo prabho vakyamana atitha so that is what buddha and that is what followers of buddha madhyamikas highest school of philosophy is really meaning by the word shunyam not nonexistence as many many buddhists misunderstand it because it is unnatural for us to say let me not be at all so even a person who is suffering intolerably indescribably he says death is better than living and suffering like this he doesn't mean that he wants to be nonexistent he says this pain is intolerable i do not see any remedy so better i forget about it that is why most people drink, take drugs or go into sleep and if any time you don't wake up to think about god that means you are getting more happiness by sleeping than by thinking about god there is no doubt about it anyway these four these are called and one against the other and then finally he defeats the madhyamika also saying that everything is shunyam that is not correct what remains is pure consciousness and as the yogachara people say it is not kshanika it is nityam and it is one that is what he wants to establish what is its nature it is of the nature of indescribable infinite bliss this is the essence of from 24th to 28th if you have understood this brief description in the simplest language that i have given you you understand the coming few lines i will just briefly read them subjective knowledge must have an objective cause otherwise both must be resistant this is the view of the sautrantika for this reason as well as that of the experience of pain pressure etc existence of the external objects accepted by other thinkers should also be admitted this is partially the view of vaibhasikas why do i say so because remember this beautiful truth i can see a sweet mango and i can eat it this belongs to the body pure gross experience but that i feel very happy about it that belongs to the mind that is the reaction of the mind so the vaibhasikas accept only the reaction of the mind not the it is what is called the bhasha jagat external world is only that is you cannot directly experience but you can inference anumana anumayam so the first sentence is restating the views of the sautrantika the second line is restating the view of the vaibhasika and so we go to the next because this is what shankaracharya also gives from the view point of logical reason a cause for the subjective impression must be assigned but from the highest standpoint of the highest reality or the true nature of things we find that the so called cause is after all no cause at all see this karikasa meant for an intimate discussion with highly trained developed pupils or students who have been thoroughly grounded in all the six darshanas including their beliefs and their ideas about mukti etc and this is only a very aphoristic restatement of these views for their sake just because we are reading doesn't mean that we are really trained in it there are some scholars who are trained in it and they appreciate much better now coming to this 25th verse what he says that there is a from the view point of logical reason that means what transactional point of view vyavaharika point of view that there is a subjective impression this is talking about vaivasika school what he said we cannot directly experience external world but we can experience we can infer there is an external world because there is an impression of a for example a mango and I must have seen this mango through this body I don't know I cannot see directly it is as I give the example when you are seeing the reflection of the bazaar straight outside if you put a mirror in a 90 degree what you call angle and you can see it so like that you are only seeing the impression in the mind but so mind cannot have an impression unless there is a reality and therefore there must be world this is the realistic view of vaivasika now Gaudapada is telling that we don't accept your view there is no external world there is no internal world both what is called non creation is our theory from the transactional point of view temporarily accepting there is a creation of the world for your sake yes that is from the logical point of view that an impression cannot happen unless there is something about which the impression has to be inferred but I am talking from the highest point of view is what he says from the standpoint of the brahman highest reality means brahman true nature of things since there is no creation at all so this your argument based upon cause and effect what is that cause and effect there is a tree outside I don't know but my sense organs can see it presented to the mind so therefore there must be a tree because I see the impression of the tree or fruit within my mind so I infer there is a mango tree, mango fruit outside this is called cause and effect relationship I could not have seen the mango without my body through the eye and through the nose or through the hands touching that mango etc. I don't know all those things but the impression is it is a sweet mango that impression must have a what is called then it is an effect cause is an effect the effect is an effect it must have every effect must have a cause so there must be a thing this is your view we don't accept your view because we only feel that there is no creation at all creation means what there is no mango tree outside there is no body there is no mind so who is seeing what there is nobody seeing anything this is the summary short and conciseness of this 25th karika and then 26th we enter na sanskritya dhartham na arthaabhasam tadai vacha abhutohi tasyaartho na arthaabhasas tatha vrithak the mind is not related to the external object nor are the ideas which appear as external objects reflections upon the mind it is so because the objects are non-existent and the ideas are not separate from the mind it is the same argument put in a slightly refined way Gaudapada is refuting the opponent's view who is the opponent the Vaibhashika opponent what is he telling the mind is not related to the object because objects are not there what is the meaning of object world, external world there is no external world there is no external world at least do you accept an internal world called mind he says no there is neither mind nor jagat neither body nor mind both we don't accept they are not created at all so why do you say like this because if there is an external object then just like the outside street can be reflected in the mirror which is kept at an 90 degrees angle you can see when there is no street when there is no light when there is no mirror what are you going to experience nothing at all this is the view of the Ajati Vada remember what is the reason I say that your your thought that there is an external object and that is giving an impression in the mind what is the reason for this rejecting I am rejecting your idea it is so because I am rejecting because the objects are non-existent that means external world doesn't exist and when there is no external world the ideas that is there is a tree, tree itself doesn't exist but at least can I imagine that there is a tree even though it doesn't exist no it will not happen so the mind also doesn't exist if the mind doesn't exist sense organs cannot work when there is no mind when there is no external world that is called Ajati Vada then what remains pure consciousness alone remains this is what he wants to tell in this 27th therefore what is the conclusion therefore neither the mind nor the objects perceived by the mind are ever born that means they are not born and those who perceive such birth suppose some people say I see it you are as good as you see birds flying in the sky and you see human beings walking on earth and if you observe there are footprints of the person especially if there is rain mud footprints will be there and if anybody says I see the bird leaving footprints in the sky that means what there are no footprints in the sky that means what there is no birds also because there is no sky also there is no creation at all therefore if anybody claims like that that all the ideas I have are impressions of the external world he is a fool is a madcap that sees the footprints of birds flying in the sky that means his ideas are totally nonsense nonsense now I will wrap up these things what is it Gaudapada is a positive propagator Ajatipada that there is no world existing and so long as you are thinking the world is existing you are like that fool who sees footprints of the birds flying in the sky so there is no world there is no body there is no mind now how do we accept this he says that this is just to hear first time when you hear nonsense you say second time you hear or after some years seems to be possible third time you say that probably you are right fourth time you say here you are absolutely right this is for the purpose of Shravanam and one point that is as we go on practicing corresponding spiritual disciplines we understand everything that really speaking really really speaking external world has no worth at all it is our creation only that is called say what is called I create the whole lot in my mind through thinking like our dreams is an example and seeing a snake which never existed was another example through these examples is it a fact from the realization point of view that is a fact is it a fact from the transactional point of view we are seeing for us Brahman is non-existent this world is non-existent but we are neither worldly people nor realized souls we are in between people so this is what Upanishad is teaching don't think it is Gaudapada's teaching so first progress is in the field of duality so Dvaitins and Visishtadvaitins but the highest truth is what is it there is no Sadhaka there is no Sadhana etc. this is the truth means Ramakrishna Holy Mother and Swami Vekananda bless us all with Bhakti Jai Ramakrishna