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," the extinguishing of the firebrand. In this chapter, we have dealt with Karikas up to the 23rd. From the 14th to the 23rd Karika, Gaudapada aims to refute the Mimamsa views that claim there is no creation at all. According to Mimamsa, creation implies a cause, as creation is an effect. Therefore, there must be a cause. However, Mimamsa cannot identify the cause because they view birth, which indicates Samsara (bondage or the world), as the effect. Birth signifies Samsara, and Samsara represents the world, which is treated as the effect. Each of us has our own world based on how we perceive our body and mind – these can be thought of as coloured glasses. Gaudapada asserts that there is no external world separate from our individual world. Even our perception of viewing someone objectively is essentially a subjective perspective – it's our interpretation of that person. The whole world becomes our view, a philosophy known as Drishti Srishti Vada. We see the world not as it objectively is but as we perceive it through our coloured body and mind. It's a highly practical philosophy. If we desire to escape this world, we must recognize that there is no world at all. One evident fact is that when the mind ceases to exist, there is no world. This means there is no body, no mind, no bondage, no Sukha, and no Dukha. So what remains? While many might think that the absence of the mind leads to emptiness (Shunyam), scripture contradicts this notion. Scripture often contradicts two key things, particularly that the world is filled with many things, and it conveys that there is only one reality. However, even the usage of the term "one" is primarily a transactional perspective from the mind's point of view. The scripture tells us that there is only Brahman, and Brahman is not just one; it's Advaitam – not even two. We shouldn't even describe it as one, two, or many. This showcases the limitations of language. So, according to the scriptures, two things are negated: firstly, the belief in the existence of many things in the world, and secondly, the notion that when the mind is absent, everything becomes non-existent. 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. Rather, there is something that is purely existent – Sat, Chit, Ananda. These are the two key insights from the scriptures. Now, if there is only Brahman, what is the world? It's an imagination, a Kalpana. It doesn't genuinely exist. This is the contention of Advaitavadins. It's important to remember that we are specifically discussing Advaitavada here. Gaudapada was an extreme Advaitin, with no room for compromise with Bhakti and similar paths. He advocates Ajati Vada – the belief that there is no creation at all. To support this view, he first refutes the Sat Karya Vada and Asat Karya Vada of the Nyaya Vaiseshika. Then, he negates the Sat Karya Vada of the Sankhya Yoga. Subsequently, he challenges the six reasons presented by the Mimamsakas, who are followers of Karmakanda, to argue that even asserting the existence of Samsara is untenable. His conclusion is that the Mimamsakas believe in the genuine existence of the world as a Karya (effect) with a Karana (cause), and wherever there's a Karya, there must be a Karana. This means that when cause and effect are posited, there must be a relationship between the cause and effect. Gaudapada refutes all these views of the Mimamsakas through six reasons to establish Ajati Vada – the belief in the non-creation of the world.

During his time, Buddhism was very, very popular. So there were four schools of Buddhism. I'll introduce them to you. Buddhism, after Buddha, split into two: Mahayana and Hinayana, the Great Way and the Inferior Way. Who says the Inferior Way? Hinayana is translated. 'Yana' means 'way,' 'hina' means 'inferior.' Nobody will say, 'I am an inferior person.' This term was purely created by Mahayana. They claimed, 'We are superior,' like that. So Mahayana resulted in two schools of thinking. A school of philosophy means a school of thinking, and a school of thinking means where they use extensive reasoning to prove how illogical we are.

So Hinayana split into Sautrantika and Vaibhashika, and Mahayana split into Yogachara and Madhyamika. From Karika 24 to Karika practically 29 or 30, Gaudapada is trying to establish that all four are completely wrong. How does he approach it? First of all, he says that between Yogachara and Sautrantika and Vaibhashika, there's a debate. And he makes Yogachara win over both the schools of Sautrantika and Vaibhashika. Then he pits Yogachara against Madhyamika, which was developed in the middle of the 10th or 12th century by a very sharp intellectual called Nagarjuna, and his Vada is called Madhyamika. Madhyamika means the middle path, which is okay. The Golden Path is also okay, but the abstruse logic he uses is difficult to understand. So what is this Madhyamika view? Madhyamika view is that everything is nothing, finally Shunyavada.

For that, I have given a whole class in the last class, an introduction. But briefly, to recap, Hinayana 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 were no tree, for example, I could not have perceived a tree. This is their first reasoning. What is their second reasoning? Suppose there is no, let's say, two things are there to clarify the matter. I see a tiger and I see a beautiful mango tree in the summer season, full of sweet fruits, and the tree does not belong to anybody; it's public property. So what happens? I see the tree and I see the fruits, and I feel tempted to eat them. So I go and, like Krishna, the mango fruits have come within my reach, so 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'll just modify the example for our enjoyment a little. That tree actually belongs to somebody whom I hate, and that person is absent. That's 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 tree first, and I go and enjoy the fruit, which is giving me happiness, pleasure, and joy. So two things: perceiving the tree and experiencing the result of interacting with that tree. So the Sautrantikas say that if there were no tree, I could never have seen it. Could you not have imagined it? This is a great psychological fact. What is it? Every imagination is based on 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, a 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 addendum 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 can say, 'This is a neem tree, this is a coconut tree, this is a mango tree, this is an apple tree,' etc. So a variety of facts. How can I have experiences 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, feelings of loss, feelings of gain, etc. This is the view of the first school of Hinayana called Sautrantika. Then comes Vaibhashika, and they consider themselves much more intelligent than Sautrantikas. They say there is an external world, and it is real, a really existing world. So how is it there? It is there. The external world is there. But then what is the difference? Vaibhashika says you cannot directly know it; you can only infer its existence by experiencing it. Otherwise, it's not possible. This is their view. But the Vaisheshikas 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 Vaisheshikas 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's like saying you keep a mirror in front of you, and that mirror is reflecting the external world, and you are seeing it 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. This is the Vaisheshikas' view.

Both are called realists. Both accept the existence of the external world. What is the difference? Sautrantikas say we come into direct contact with the external world, while Vaisheshikas say we come into indirect or inferred contact with the external world. So, the only difference is direct experience vs. indirect or inferred experience. This is the difference.

Now, the 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. 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; the next second, it forgets the mango tree, and I see an apple tree. The next second, I see a tiger. So, your consciousness is also first seeing a mango through the vritti, and then it sees an apple tree; that is the second vritti, replacing the first vritti, and it sees a tiger; this is the third vritti, replacing every other vritti. So, it is kshanika; that is your consciousness is changing all the time. This is the view held by Yogachara school: consciousness is everything, and these are called idealists; that is, the 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 Sautrantika and Vaisheshika. 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 the second round, you will have to compete with Madhyamika, and then, if you can, whoever defeats, and I will contend with that person and take away everything.'

So now, the second round, 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. So, the awareness is Kshanika, meaning ever-changing. So how does the Advaitin contend with that? Says, 'Okay, 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, the first time when you saw the 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 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 it is the same mango tree I have been seeing since childhood. The 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 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 similar tree? Now, Advaitin catches hold of him. So, even to recognize it is similar, there should be somebody 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, 'The person whom you know is the exact same person,' or he might look similar. That is how we mistake. 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 murdered, and then the other fellow is gleeful that we eliminated him. The next second, this fellow comes, 'You have killed somebody like me.' He is a lookalike; he is not the same fellow. So, this similarity doesn't work because whether you see the same object or a 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, Kshanikavadin, 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, 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. Kshanikavadin 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 in 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 into nefarious worlds, inferior worlds. It stops midway; the mind will not go below that.

Okay, anyway. Now the fourth school of Buddhism 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 has to contend with and say, if you say everything is Shunyam, then 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 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? Dukkhani, let me never suffer. Sukha Prapthi, let me be always happy. What is the meaning of 'always'?

Asatoma Sad-Gamaya

Asatoma Sad-Gamaya

Tamaso Maa Jyotir-Gamaya

Mrytyor-Maa Amritam Gamaya

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. A semi-active state is called dream state. Whether it is waking or dream, our every effort, if you analyze, dukkha nivrutti, sukha prapthi, how to avoid dukkham and how to obtain more happiness. The first quest is getting rid of suffering; the second is, 'How can I be even happier than I am now?' This is called sukha prapthi. '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 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 dukha and obtain it for 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 and mind to the time we become aware of our body and 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 the whole night is gone, and the whole night is sukham. Aham aswap sam. This sukha, in fact somebody said that even the poorest man works the 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 marvellous 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. The 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 point of view, 5 hours, 6 hours, 7 hours, 8 hours, whatever number of hours, 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 it is 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 our whole life proves that 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. 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, the highest school of philosophy, are really meaning by the word shunyam. Not nonexistence as 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 non-existent. 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, Sautranika, Vaibhasika, Yogachara and Madhyamika, these are called Nasthika Darshanas. And Gaudapada pits 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? Sat Chit Sukha Swaroopam, it is of the nature of indescribable, infinite bliss. This is the essence from the 24th to the 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.

प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वमन्यथा द्वयनाशतः ।

संक्लेशस्योपलब्धेश्च परतन्त्रास्तिता मता ॥ २४ ॥

prajñapteḥ sanimittatvamanyathā dvayanāśataḥ |

saṃkleśasyopalabdheśca paratantrāstitā matā || 24 ||

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 the 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 external world. It is what is called the Bahya Jagat. The external world is that you cannot directly experience, but you can infer (Anumana).

The first sentence is restating the views of the Sautrantika. The second line is restating the view of the Vaibhasika. So we go to the next. Because this is what Shankaracharya also gives.

प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वमिष्यते युक्तिदर्शनात् ।

निमित्तस्यानिमित्तत्वम् इष्यते भूतदर्शनात् ॥ २५ ॥

prajñapteḥ sanimittatvamiṣyate yuktidarśanāt |

nimittasyānimittatvam iṣyate bhūtadarśanāt || 25 ||

From the viewpoint 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, these Karikas are 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 it much better.

Now, coming to this 25th verse, what he says is that from the viewpoint of logical reason, that means the transactional point of view (Vyavaharika point of view), there is a subjective impression. This is talking about the Vaibhasika school. What he said: We cannot directly experience the external world, but we can infer there is an external world because there is an impression of, for example, a mango. And I must have seen this mango through this body. I don't know; I cannot see it 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 angle, you can see it. So, like that, you are only seeing the impression in the mind. But, so, the mind cannot have an impression unless there is a reality. And therefore, there must be a world. This is the realistic view of Vaibhasika. Now, Gaudapada is telling that we don't accept your view. There is no external world, there is no internal world, both. Ajati, non-creation is our theory. From the transactional point of view, temporarily accepting there is a creation of the world for your sake. Yes, bhuta darshana, 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 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 that it is a sweet mango. That impression must have a cause. Cause is an effect; the effect is an effect; it 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,

चित्तं न संस्पृशत्यर्थं नार्थाभासं तथैव च ।

अभूतो हि यतश्चार्थो नार्थाभासस्ततः पृथक् ॥ २६ ॥

cittaṃ na saṃspṛśatyarthaṃ nārthābhāsaṃ tathaiva ca |

abhūto hi yataścārtho nārthābhāsastataḥ pṛthak || 26 ||

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. There is no external world. Suppose 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 a 90-degree 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 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 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.

तस्मान्न जायते चित्तं चित्तदृश्यं न जायते ।

तस्य पश्यन्ति ये जातिं खे वै पश्यन्ति ते पदम् ॥ २८ ॥

tasmānna jāyate cittaṃ cittadṛśyaṃ na jāyate |

tasya paśyanti ye jātiṃ khe vai paśyanti te padam || 28 ||

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 are 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. He is a madcap that sees the footprints of birds flying in the sky. That means his ideas are totally nonsense.

Now I will wrap up these things. What is it? Gaudapada is a positive propagato, Ajativada, 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. The 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 drishti srishti vada, '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? For us, Brahman is non-existent; this world is 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? There is no Sadhaka, there is no world, there is no Sadhana, etc. This is the truth.