Mandukya Karika Lecture 126 on 25-October-2023

Full Transcript (Not Corrected)

We have been seeing the philosophy or philosophical views of the four schools of Buddhism. Sautrantika, Vaibhashika, Yogachara and Madhyamika. And of all these, Madhyamika is also called Shunyavada. Now, to be very brief, the Sautrantikas, they say there is an external world and we understand it because we have experience of the external world or objects in the external world. There cannot be any experience if there were to be no objects. For example, if there is no tree outside existing independently of our mind, we can never have the impression of a tree. This is the view of the Sautrantikas. Then comes a little bit refined person. No, no, there is no external world. There is an external world. It is true. But we cannot directly experience it. Just like you put one mirror and look into the reflection of the mirror outside world. This is one of the verses we get in the Dakshinamurthy Sutram, which we have done. Vishwam Darpana Drishyamana Nagaritulyam So this Vaibhashika school of Buddhism, what does it say? It also says there is an external world. But the Sautrantikas, they want to prove we have an experience and experience is not possible if there was no external object. But these Vaibhashikas, they say it is true that there is an external world, but we can never know what the external world is. We can only know what the mirror of our mind is trying to show us. Of course, through the medium of the sense organs. Sense organs bring the impression or the, as it were, mould presents it to the mind. And the mind looks at it and says this is the colour, this is the sound, this is the smell, it is the taste, etc. So, according to them, very interesting argument. And Swamiji also tells the same thing. Nobody can directly experience the world only through our mind. So, for example, if you are eating a sweet, you think directly I am experiencing sweet. But no, the tongue gets the impression or the nerves of the tongue and then that is conveyed to the mind. And then mind approves and says yes, this is a sweet taste. Apply it to every other sense organ. So, this is the view. Both of them are called realists. Realists because the world is real. Only they differ whether it is directly experienced or indirectly experienced. If it is directly experienced, it is called Sautrantika. If it is indirectly experienced, it is called Vibhasika. Then comes this Yogachara person. He doesn't accept there is any world at all outside. What does he say? Everything is depending upon our mind. And the mind has a very special power called consciousness. And this mind imagines things like we imagine things in our dream. In the dream, as we all know, there is no external world. But the impressions that we gather from experiencing the external world, we keep them in memory, Smriti, and reproduce them in the dream state. But the Yogachara people don't accept that there is at all any external world. Then where from these Samskaras have come, memories have come? Oh, it is just imagination, Kalpana. So, mind has the capacity to imagine. So, it goes on imagining many things. And they give the example also, you know. You may be dreaming that you are flying in the sky like a bird. You don't see any bird. But you are exactly yourself. And many of us have dreamt like that. And if we have not dreamt like that, there is some serious fat problem. Otherwise, thin people can always imagine that they are flying like a bird in the sky. I myself have dreamt so many times in that way. Many people also, they do that. Especially if you lie down on your back, not on your side. So, there is no world. It is all Kalpana, imagination. And that imagination belongs to the consciousness. And that consciousness is Kshanika. That is, just a moment, and then next moment, what it imagines and itself. The imaginer and the imagined, both are Kshanika, momentary. Then when they are asked, But how do you remember that previously you recognized people? Oh, this is the person whom I have seen one hour back. How do you recognize? Oh, that is similarity. How do you know it is similar? They cannot answer, of course. This is a very beautiful logic. Anyway, these people depend upon logic too much. That is why they are all called Tarkikas. And the Buddhistic philosophers have developed very strong logic. And Hindus, especially Mimamsakas like Kumarila Bhatta, could not counter them. So, Kumarila Bhatta, in a false guise, That is, I want to be a great Buddhist. I don't like this Hinduism. So, he went and became a disciple of a great Buddhist teacher, just to learn the skillfulness of their argument, logic. And then, at the end, he was caught. And the Guru was, what is called, Criticizing severely the Vedas. Because Buddha never accepted Vedas. Then tears came out. And then somebody noticed it, Understood this is a false Buddhist, not real Buddhist. So, then they informed the Guru. Throw this fellow from the mountain down, he will die. And then, when he was being thrown, This Kumarila Bhatta was known to have said, If Vedas are true. Anyway, he landed safely. But only thing was, one of his limbs had become a little bit lame. Later on, somebody asked, Did not your Vedas save you? Yes, they saved. But I used a wrong word. If, if means expression of doubt. I should never have used it. Vedas are true, they will save me. Then he would not have lost that limb also. Anyway, he felt very bad. He deceived his Guru. And every Bhimamsaka accepts the Guru, Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, So, the only atonement for this crime of deceiving the Guru is suicide. And slow suicide. So, he sat down on a pile of husk. And husk burns very, very, very slowly. So, the braveness of the person to endure that terrible pain, Slowly he is being roasted at a low heat. But at that time, Shankaracharya, Who wanted to defeat these Bhimamsakas, He came to know, Kumarila Bhatta was the greatest Bhimamsaka. And he met him on his funeral pyre. And then he wanted to argue. But then Kumarila Bhatta said, I am not in a position. You go to my disciple Mandana Mishra. If you can defeat him, As good as defeating me, Because he is equivalent to me in this Bhimamsaka system. And then Shankaracharya salutes him. Because such a tremendous sacrifice, Definitely he will attain Mukti. There is no doubt about it. Shankara makes his way to Mandana Mishra's house. And even the birds that are there in Mandana Mishra's house, They are also arguing with the opponent parties. That is how Shankara was directed. When you reach the house of Mandana Mishra, You will hear even the pet birds trying to defeat the opponents. So, when you behold this marvellous scene, Know that it is no other house than Mandana Mishra's house. Of course, there were 18 days. There was an argument. And a very interesting argument also. His wife was chosen as the examining person. But usually, wives only prefer the husbands. That is what wives think. But the wife of Mandana Mishra certainly did not prefer. She was called Ubhayabharathi. A very learned person. How many such learned wives are there? Women are there? God alone knows. Later on, many of our Hindus suppressed and oppressed. Women should never get educated, etc. Stupid fellows. Not understanding. If the mother is educated, the children will be much brighter than uneducated women. Anyway, that is the past history. India's past history. And we suffered. We are paying the price even today. Slowly, India seems to be recovering a little bit. Anyway, there was an argument. At the same time, Ubhayabharathi's responsibility was to feed all the followers of Shankara. Who were there? His disciples and devotees. As well as many other Pandits who came. Because it is the most crucial test. And if Mandana Mishra is defeated, then the whole Mimamsaka system, Karma Kanda system, ritualistic system stands defeated. Because Mandana Mishra was the Guru. This is called Prathama Malla Nyaya. That is to say, whoever is world champion, if another person can defeat him, then he need not go on fighting with anybody else. Only the world champion. If he can defeat the person who defeats, he becomes the world champion. This is called Prathama Malla, means world's best wrestler. So, how to solve this problem? How to look after all the guests with all due honour? And that means Panchavaksha Ramana. How to at the same time sit and listen to their arguments? So this lady devised a very clever scheme. She made two fresh garlands and then put them round the necks of both of them and declared, whosoever's garland seems to be fed away, that person is definitely to be defeated. What is the psychology? That a person who knows inside, he starts trembling, he starts fearing. That produces more heat in the body and the garland will get affected by that heat. Unless the garland is endowed with consciousness and then he says, this fellow is a stupid fellow. Anyway, marvellous story. So at the end of 18 days, the garland round Shankaracharya remained fresh and fragrant, whereas her husband's seems to be fading away. Then of course, Kumarila was mainly trying to argue. He could not argue. The condition, the bet was, whoever is defeated will give up what he was following and become the disciple. So now Mandana Mishra became, later on he was supposed to have been renamed as Reshwaracharya and he wrote marvellous works also. Anyway, this is just by the way I am telling it. So this Kumarila Bhatta, he learnt all these Buddhistic ways of logic and used it and burnt many, many hundreds of Buddhists. This is history. So this Mandana Mishra became what is called Mimamsaka system, was also defeated by Shankaracharya and we have seen how it is this Mimamsaka system, that is means Karmakanda system, which is first? Body is first or Karmaphala is first? Karma is first because every birth comes only because of Karmaphala. That is every Hindu's firm belief we had past births. So which is the first? Which is the last? And peculiar logic, we have seen that one from 14th to 23rd and from 24th we are dealing with the Buddhistic systems. So Sautrantika is called realist. Vaibhashika is also called realist. But this what is called Yogachara person says everything is Kshanika Chaitanya. The only one momentary consciousness and he was also defeated. These are called idealists. Idealist means those who believe in the ideas that are springing from the mind. It is the work of the mind, especially Yogachara school. Then even further refinement to this Yogachara school is called Madhyamika. Madhyamika means middle way and this was created especially by a great Andhra soul called Nagarjuna. That is why there is a Nagarjuna University near Guntur. Now the point is this Nagarjuna is accepted to be one of the greatest persons. He said even the consciousness is also Shunyam. Everything is Shunyam. If everything is Shunyam, one clever Advaitin counters it. If everything is Shunyam, you are Shunyam. Therefore what you teach also is Shunyam. Therefore I need not account for it at all. But it is only for fun. I am quoting. The fact is that that which is indescribable and if there is one, that can never be described. If you think a little bit deeply, any description, it always posits something else. For example, if you say, you know that leaf is a green leaf and how do you understand by these words what is a green leaf. You must have seen something else which is green. Then only you posit and say this plant also is of the same color as the other plant. Like that we come to have comparisons, previous experience. So Shunyam is indescribable and this is firmly what Swami Shardanandaji wants to establish. Shunyam is nothing but pure Vedanta describing only Brahman, which means Buddha never accepted Saguna Brahma. He always accepted only Nirguna Brahma, which is absolutely true because he says there is something eternal, something unborn, something unoriginated, something infinite and we are that. He doesn't say in these expressions. Carefully he avoided Vedantic expressions. That means he was a thorough student of Upanishads but because he wanted to bring about certain change in the ritualistic system, especially Pashubali, killing, sacrificing in the name of God, lakhs and lakhs of innocent animals even though they were not able to eat them but for the sake of sacrifice, blind belief, he denied the very value of Vedas and then the priest concocted all these things. That is why he doesn't want to say anything about personal God. He always accepted only the impersonal. If anybody thinks Buddhism is only talking about some non-existent something, that person will be terribly mistaken. Anyway, coming back to our subject, from 24th to 29th, this is the subject. In our last class, we have seen that Gaudapada wants to refute all these groups. And then what does he say? How does he do it? He says, you are positing something that is even to say whether the world exists, whether really or ideal-wise. Even to say that, that means the moment we accept that there is something, it may be external, it may be internal, it may be real or it may be imagined or created or what we call imaginary. It doesn't matter. But there is a point of time before that you are not imagining it and for some time you continue to imagine it. That comes to an end. So there must be a causal relationship, cause. And cause is always beyond time. Any effect if you really understand with your logical mind. A baby was not there, for example. So a baby was born and then now onwards he grows up and after some time, the same baby, he might die at any time. So there is a time, there was a time when there was no baby. There is a time when there is a baby. There will be a time when there will be no baby. So this falling under the control of the, what is called limitation of the time, which automatically implies space also, time and space. And there must be a reason for that also. Without cause, for example, no baby will be born without any cause If parents get married, there is a reason for that. We want children and we want to produce, have some lineage, etc. That is the cause. But of course Hindus would accept Purva Janma, Karma Phala as the cause. But what does Gaudapada want to establish? Ajati Vada. That there was never any creation at all. There was no creation at all. Brahman is completely unborn. And that is why he says in our 28th Karika, we have seen that those who see the birth of this world and the existence of this world and the disappearance of this world, they are like mad fellows who seem to see the footprints of birds flying in the sky. So that is what we have seen. Asmat na jayate chittam. This is the refutation of those who say everything is because of the mind. Chittam here means mind. And the mind produces ideas. They are called Chittadrishyam. So na jayate chittam. The mind itself is not born. What to speak of? Chittadrishyam. The objects which the mind imagines. Na jayate. Automatically they are not born. Otherwise you have to say there was no baby. So from this unborn baby, this unborn baby has given birth to many children. It is like that. It is not possible. But those who see its Karana and Karya, birth and its consequences, Tasya Pashyanti E Jatim. Jati here means not Brahmana Jati, Vaishya Jati. Jati means birth. Those who see the birth of the mind, etc. They are like people. In the sky, when we are walking, our footprints can sometimes be found on what is called even what is called forensic science. If a murder has taken place, they will take the handprints, footprints, thumbprints, etc. Even though we do not see, some impression we leave behind. And as I mentioned earlier, if there is some rain and mud is there, definitely you will leave the footprints there. But when a bird is flying in the sky, what footprints can be there? So a person who sees the birth of that which is birthless, which is called Brahman, they are like the people who see the footprints of the birds. That is what he wants to tell. That means he wants to establish not only the mind does not produce, mind itself has no birth. That is what he wants to tell. These are called Vijnanavadis and that is there. Now we are going to proceed. Similar this thing is there. Now Gaudapada wraps up. What does he wrap up? The counter arguments which he has been using earlier from 24th to 28th in five karikas trying to overcome what you call the Buddhistic schools of ideas about the creation of the world, etc. As I just now mentioned, the first two schools who belong to the Hinayana, which is Sautrantika and Vaibhashika, both of them are called realists. The only difference is the first school says we cannot have experience unless there is an object. The second school says it is true, but we don't directly experience. We experience indirectly like we put a mirror at 90 degrees angle and see the world outside as reflected in that mirror. Only what is inside a reflection in the mirror that alone a person sees. Like we are all seeing whether you take this phone monitor or TV or any monitor or PC monitor, you will see what a big cricket match, football match is going on. What we see is not direct, but indirect. What if we are simply sitting there attending? According to Vedanta, that is also indirect only. Directly means you are nearer to that experience, but it is not at all direct. Why? Because you see in the reflection of what is happening outside in the mirror of your mind. Directly you can never see this time as well as space that will be completely limiting your experience. Not only that, the second problem is even when we are looking, if we look, suppose we admire only one side of the players, say cricket match, you are an Indian player's fan, then you will see the Indian players playing in a glorious way. So whatever the opponent is doing, you never appreciate that person's greatness, glory. You go on criticizing it. It is pure business. Similarly, our political views as it is happening now, the whole world practically is divided whom they are going to support, etc. This is called secondary seeing. This is Mithya seeing. This is cataract seeing. This is jaundiced seeing. So many types of seeing is there. So in the Karika 29th, he wants to say his Godfather wants to put forth his view that there is no creation at all. It is called Ajati. What is he saying? What does he want to say? He wants to say in the opinion of the disputants that which is unborn is said to be born. For its very nature is to be ever unborn. It is never possible for a thing to be other than what it is. If you just read this translation, no sense comes to you because many things are hidden in that. Ajatam jayate asmat. This is who is telling Ajatam. The disputant, the Buddhist school, they are not saying. Gaudapada is saying you fellows, you are attributing that which is unborn and what is unborn, Brahman. You are saying what I call Brahman is born but it is illogical according to me. Why? Why? So what is the Prakruti? Real nature. Real nature of whom? Brahman. What is Brahman's real nature? Ajatihi. Brahman is never born but you are talking about Brahman being born. This is completely wrong. Why he says? Gaudapada uses a word here. It is called Prakruti. Prakruti means its real nature. What is the real nature of a golden ornament? Gold. There may be a thousand golden ornaments but the real nature of all those ornaments without any exception is only gold. Then what is the difference? Why do we say there are one thousand? Because one is a necklace, another is a bangle, another is a ring, another is a ear ring, another is a nose ring, another is a girdle round the waist and I think in our previous olden days, earlier days, wives used to be gifted by the what is called husbands a huge what we call girdle, pure gold etc. And if that woman happens to be very fat, so a very fat girdle is necessary with thick gold. So even one-fourth inch or one-seventh of an inch, one-eighth of an inch like that, my own mother used to have a huge one because the men are very intelligent. So they think that even if economy goes down, national economy goes down, this one will never go down. They never believed in banks and all those things. Banks always are debunked, you know. Diwala Ho Gaya. Banks Diwala Ho Gaya. This is what they say. So, Prakruti Prakruti A Prakruti Anyadha Bhavaha A thing's real nature will never become anything else other than that. Suddenly, a golden ornament is not going to become an iron ornament or a wooden ornament or a plastic ornament. So, what is the difference then? The difference is in the Nama and Rupa. So, a ring is a small one. What is called, if you have a ring for the small finger, it will be a smaller ring. If it is a necklace, it will be much larger. It will be ear ring, again it will be smaller. So, like that, the difference is only Nama, Rupa but without exception, all of them are gold. Gold is never going to change. How do we know? Before ornament was made, it was gold. After the ornament was gold, it did not change at all. It is still gold and again if you melt the ornaments, they will be gold only. So, Godfather says that which is unborn, that is why it is called unborn, is never going to be born because to be born means to undergo change. It is like saying, infinite becomes finite, the changeless becomes changeful. That is not accepted by any reason. So, na kathan chit bhavishati. It was not possible, it is not possible, it will not be possible at three times. That is why we have to recollect. What is it? What is the definition of truth? Trikala abadhitam satyam. That which never undergoes any change and another name for change is called past, present and future. So, time is changeful and if it is not changing, it is beyond time. Akala. That is what Godfather wants to say. Brahman can never be born because its nature is unchanging. That which is unchanging, suddenly it will not change at all. That is what he wants to say. So, in nature, nothing can maintain its identity when it has sacrificed its essential nature. But, the example is hot ice and cold fire. Hot ice can never be cold ice and hot fire can never be cold fire. Impossible. Similarly, something to be born out of the unborn is a proposition too ridiculous for any wise philosopher even to imagine that way. That is the essence of 29th karika. Then we move on to 30th karika and the same thing he is repeating in different words. Who is repeating? Godapada is repeating. Now, a little bit of background to this. It is all what is called the science of logic. What is the logic? Earlier we have seen the Sankhyavadins saying Prakruti is Anadi. Remember the Sankhya school of philosophy, their way of thinking. There are two principles called Purusha and Prakruti and both of them are eternal. Eternal means what? Eternal means beginningless. Beginningless means what? Endless. So, it goes beyond logic. It is illogical to think something is beginningless but it has an end. Something is having an end but it is beginningless. Both are illogical statements. That is what he wants to tell like that in two words. Two ideas. Remember the fourth chapter is only a recapitulation of what is going on earlier. What has been crystal clearly we have already discussed. He is only summarizing sometimes in different words. Sometimes he will bring the same shlokas, karikas even here to reinforce his arguments. This fourth chapter is full of these arguments, logical arguments which is very interesting. But the essence is what? The world is not there. There is no world. There is nobody born. It is impossible for the Brahman to be born. Therefore, there is no jiva. Therefore, there is no bondage. Therefore, there is no sadhana. Therefore, there is no mukti. This is ityesha paramarthata. This is the highest truth and that is the final conclusion of Advaita Vedanta. For that only all these arguments are coming. Now earlier we have seen in the 29th that which prakruti cannot be changed. He is stating the logical principle prakruti means one's real nature here. One's real nature can never be changed and what can be changed? It is not unchangeable nature. It is changeable nature. Now he wants to establish two points. What is the point? O opponent and here he is addressing the Sankhyavadin especially if you posit that the samsara is anadi. You cannot say that by sadhana samsara will come to an end. You are violating your own principle. What is that principle? That which is beginningless will be endless. That which is beginningless can never have any end. If you posit that our samsara is beginningless, anadi but through sadhana one day it will come to an end. Already we have discussed threadbare these ideas. Only you have to recollect it. This is all because Gaudapada was a very compassionate teacher. We know that we don't remember. He knows that we don't remember anything. So poor man goes on trying to remind ourselves. So what is the first point? Gaudapada points out that whatever is beginningless will be endless also. Anadi, ananta sadhi, shanta Now samsara if samsara is anadi, beginningless that means what? That is its nature. That means what? Moksha is impossible. Why? Because if samsara is beginningless samsara will be endless. Whatever you may do it is not going to come to an end. Even God cannot change. There was a logical argument I have mentioned it a few times and like Gaudapada I am also reminding you there was one believer in God and there was a non-believer in God. Aastika and Naastika Now the Naastika was very good at logic. And then he confronted this Aastika believer. He said Is your God very powerful? He said yes, very powerful. So if he is very powerful, can he create anything? He said anything, you name it this stupid fellow walked straight into the trap. If he is so powerful can he create a stone which he himself cannot move? Yes, yes that is nothing for our God. He can do it in a trice. Alright, what did you say? That it is impossible to be pushed aside. And if God could create it could God really move it? It is impossible because he has written the immovable. He created an immovable stone. And the immovable stone will be immovable. So even God cannot do it. And if he says no, it is not possible for me to create that means that fellow is totally useless. So he cannot do anything. In the first case he cannot move, he is powerless. In the second case he is even more powerless because he cannot create at all. What can the astika say? Stupid that I am. I should have earlier learned this, gone to a Buddhist and learned the art of logic. I would have told like that. So what is the first point? If this transmigration is beginningless by logic it will be endless. Nobody can put it because that is its nature. Nature cannot be changed. That is the point you have to remember. Second point, supposing supposing that the beginningless nature can be put to a stop then what happens? You become free from samsara. That means what? This is called moksha. Freedom from samsara is called moksha and falling into the net of samsara is called bandhana, bondage. So supposing 1st January 2024 your samsara ends and your moksha begins. Now what is the nature of this moksha? It was not there and now it started. Is it anadi or sadhi? It is sadhi. It has a beginning. And what is the logic? Whatever has a beginning will also have an end. So what happens? After 1 hour, not even 1 hour samsara will start. Why? Because when you have got such a mukti, I will come and ask you that have you gone out of bondage? You say yes. 1st January by Shri Ram Krishna's grace I have attained my moksha and I dispute it. And you go on getting hotter and hotter. Now getting hotter and hotter, is it part of samsara or is it part of moksha? So both ways a moksha which has a beginning and an end is undesirable even illogical unthinkable. And if the samsara means bondage is also beginningless ignorance is also beginningless it will be endless. So a beginningless and endless ignorance if that is the nature it cannot be changed. What is the answer then? If you ask the Advaitin how are you going to answer this question or rephrase it? He says both these problems can be solved because there is no samsara at all finished. Then I am feeling it you are feeling in your dream you feel somebody is dragging you or your wife is showing loving words towards you. Both are completely your stupid imaginations. It is not possible. That is what he wants to say. Moksha or liberation cannot have a beginning and at the same time be eternal. Whatever has a beginning it has an end. This is the essence of what is called 30th verse. And he is reinforcing this in two more verses. What is it? What does it mean? Yet whatever object in the beginning that means beginningless Ante means endless whatever was not existing at the beginning and doesn't exist at the end. Beginning and end in between the present time that means it doesn't exist. If somebody doesn't exist in the past, somebody doesn't exist in the future to say that the present exists is a very very illogical idea. What would we mean by present? It had a past and it will have a future. What is in between is called present. Therefore, whatever was not there at the beginning and will not be there after some time it is as good as non-existent. But then what is our experience? What is our experience? Our experience is as if the whole world is existing and this is what because of ignorance. That is what Gaudapada wants to say in the 31st Karika. What is the second argument in the 32nd Karika? A serving of some purpose by them that is the objects of aching experience is contradicted in dream. Therefore, doubtlessly recognize it to be usury on account of their having a beginning and an end. This is the crucial word. Whatever has a beginning will also have an end. For example, a baby was not there it is born. It has a beginning and then it will die at some point for sure. To wish that a baby will be living, it was just born at some point of time but it will continue for eternity is an illogical idea, not acceptable at all. For that purpose, Gaudapada brings two examples. What is it? We have varied experiences. For example, you have come from Bangalore to Varanasi and you reached today. Today morning you reached and today night after dinner you go to sleep and you have a dream. What did you say? You dream you are still in Bangalore. Now what you have seen in the dream is a complete contradiction to what is the fact. Where are you in Varanasi? Where are you lying down? In Varanasi. But in your dream what are you looking for? There in Bangalore. Upon waking up you find that my dream at 11 o'clock I went to bed so my dream might have started at 11.05 and it ended at 11.15 for 10 minutes. Actually they say even longest dreams will be only one and half minutes maximum. Most of them are just few seconds because the power of thought idea is tremendous. So it can stretch time as if you have been walking and walking and walking and walking for hours and hours together like Narada experiencing Vishnumaya within few seconds so many years have passed. So in dream the tremendous power of the ideas are there time, space, causation they have a different meaning in dream. Different they cannot be compared to the waking state. Now what Gaudapada wants to say that your experiences in the waking state when you go into dream state are completely contradicted you may find yourself in another place and you are very happy in waking state and somebody may be beating you up in your dream state could be totally different. But then what happens you wake up. Upon waking up you look back and say that was all unreal I imagined. So this serves both purposes. What is the both purpose? The waking things are contradicted by the dream experiences. Same thing will happen the dream experiences are also contradicted by the waking experiences. This we have seen in second chapter that is to say you see elephant has entered into your house and the whole house is like a match box and how an elephant can enter a mosquito can enter I can accept but elephant has entered we can never accept. So the waking experiences are completely contradicted in the dream state and the dream experiences are completely contradicted in the waking state experience. Therefore both of them get contradicted and that which is contradictible that means that which has a beginning and that which has an end can never be accepted as eternal. That is the point he wants to say. If your samsara is beginning endless then it will be endless. Even God cannot change it. But if your samsara is only an imagined one then it will come to an end. What is the point? We are thinking we are jivas. We are thinking this world is created. We are thinking we have become samsaris jivas. We are experiencing happiness and unhappiness. This is all due to the effect of avidya. Really speaking like a person who is completely free but who dreams that he has been dragged into a jail. Upon waking up he understands I was never in the jail. It was only out of my pure imagination. That is the point Gaudapada wants to tell in this 31st and 32nd karikas. I will stop here. Ramakrishnam Jagat Gurum Pada Padme Tayo Suratva Pranamami Moho Moho May Sai Ramakrishna, Holy Mother and Swami Vivekananda bless us all with bhakti. Jai Ramakrishna