Mandukya Karika Lecture 150 on 17-April-2024

Full Transcript (Not Corrected)

In our last class, we have completed the 97th Karika. What does this say? That the people who are ignorant. Who are the people who are ignorant? Those who see multiplicity, plurality, they are called ignorant people. And they are called Avipashchitaha. That is, ignorant people, not knowledgeable people. But for the real self. So such people, they are always attached to things. Now, I give very interesting examples. When we say something is impure, it doesn't mean always dirt, dust, stain, etc. Two things coming together, that is called impurity. But one fact we have to keep in mind. No two things can ever become alike. For example, if water is mixed with dirt, water can be separated, dirt can be separated. Really speaking, two separate things can never become united 100%. But if you mix salt or sugar in water, it appears only, but really has not become one. So when we are drinking sweet water, we are drinking both the sweetness and also the wateriness. But it doesn't mean water has changed its nature or sweet has changed its nature. So the point is, those who do not know that there is only Advaitam and there is no birth. Such people by Gaudapada are called ignorant people. For them, always there is an association. Multiplicity itself is impurity. Purity means there is only one thing. Even from a common sense point of view, say a chair exists, a house exists, etc. You just remove all those chair, house, tree, animal, what remains is existence. Existence is always pure. But when this existence is forgotten and we only see the manifestation of the existence, that is called impurity. So this is what happens to them. Asangata Sada Nasti, the slightest idea of plurality in Atman, entertained by the ignorant, separates them off from their approach to the unconditioned, where there is then the destruction of the veil covering the real nature of the Atman. This is a question mark. When a person has not been able to take one step forward and is claiming that I would like to climb Mount Everest is impossible. So this is what Gaudapada wants to say. But it is not a criticism of ignorant people. It is to point out that really speaking there is only Brahman, Atman and nothing else. So he is reminding us, plurality doesn't exist.

And how is plurality manifesting? In the form of the waking, dream, as well as dream, dreamless, deep sleep, Anumatreti. Suppose somebody says, "I see oneness 99%, but 1% I have got." So very often we come across, you see, towards my whole family, I have no attachment. But you know my youngest baby, somehow my heart is pulled by her. And that little pull is more than sufficient to make him fall, not go anywhere else. As an illustration, the life of Buddha teaches us a big lesson. Buddha had decided to renounce the world. Just then he was married and he had a son called Rahula. And the day he was born, it was such a lovely baby. Buddha was one of the handsomest of persons. Not only the greatest sannyasin, but the most handsome, the most virulent, powerful. That is why when later on, Buddha returns to his place, Kapilavastu, and thousands of people went to see him. And by that time, Buddha had thousands and thousands of sannyasins. So this Rahula was a young boy, peeped out, and then he must have known his father had returned. But he could not find out who his father was, because there were thousands of shaven heads. Like finding out a shaven-headed fellow in Tirupati. So he asked his mother, "Who is my father? How do I know from here?" She said, "Look carefully and you will see there is only one lion among them and the rest are all sheep." And Rahula looked and said, "There is only one man. There is not physically much difference between others. But something is so striking, so virulent, he cannot avoid it. So everybody is that same Brahman, but even the slightest of this attachment." So Buddha decided or Siddhartha decided to renounce the world. And then he went to take last look at his wife and at his child. Somehow his wife did not pose any problem. But this loveliest baby sleeping so peacefully, the description goes, he was praying to come out and then again, let me look once more. And then he looks and then he comes, no, no, let me look once more, once more. But finally he made up his mind, after all he was Buddha. And then he renounces the world. Even a little bit of attachment and Sri Ramakrishna teaches it. Such a marvellous teaching, hidden deep. There is an apprentice, he is working with some cloth sellers. And you know, there is a difference between number 46 and number 47 thread. People like us, we will not be able to distinguish between number 1 thread and number 100 thread. But these people can do it. So accepting a person works very hard. So number 46 and 47, the difference between the thickness of this small thread requires a tremendous amount of observation. That is where most of us fail. And why do we not progress? Of course, not because of Anu, but we are tightly bound by iron chains.

Anyway, what Gaudapada wants to say, even if there is 1% of what is called multiplicity, "I am different, God is different." How do we understand? Because Ramanuja's philosophy, Vishisthadvaita says, a person goes to Vaikuntha. What is the difference between God and the devotee who reaches Vaikuntha? Anumatra, just very little. So Salokya, Samipya, then Sarupya, he becomes like, even then there is a distinction. The devotee who advanced so much, he looks exactly like Vishnu. Does he? Look at what Sri Ramakrishna had done by meditating upon Anjaneya, he became Anjaneya. And by meditating upon Radha, he became completely identified with Radha. So a devotee who meditates on the form of Vishnu, he also assumes the same form, but there is a slight distinction there. He is big, I am small. And he is all-knowing, I am what is called Alpagna. He is Sarvagna, I am Alpagna. He is Sarvashaktimaan, I am Alpashaktimaan, etc. That is why he is telling, "Anumatrepe vaidharmye jaya maane," for whom avipaschitaha, that is an unwise person, asangata sadhanasti, double negative, asangata naasti. So that means sangatya, oneness with Brahman is impossible. "Kimatha avarnachyute he," but to speak of even this much of anumatra, multiplicity is creating so much problem. And there are people who are bound with thick iron chains. "Kimatha avarnachyute he," it is impossible. No? Is it really impossible? If it is impossible, then what is the point of Gaudapada's teaching, say Sri Ramakrishna's teaching, Krishna's teaching, Rama's teaching? It is to emphasize that you should not have, one should not have, a sadhaka should not have even the slightest differentiation. He should see the same. And in Sri Ramakrishna's life, there is a beautiful illustration. One day Sri Ramakrishna was in the highest mood and he wanted to bestow the same thing to his beloved Narendra. So Sri Ramakrishna had smoked that habul-babul and he wants Narendra to smoke from the same pipe. But Narendra had by this time observed how pure Sri Ramakrishna was. And he was not feeling so sure about himself. So he was hesitating. "You give it to me, sir. I will wash it." And then Sri Ramakrishna says, "What? Even now so much of ignorance. What is the difference between you and me?" Of course, from Sri Ramakrishna's point of view, there is not much difference. But it does not mean that we do not feel the difference at all. So this is like that. It is a very interesting concept, you know. A person, a small baby, the baby is the son of a queen and king. But he does not know that his father is a king. All-powerful, he can take away life from anybody. His mother is so powerful, she can take away even the life of her husband. But the baby does not know. Simply runs. So maybe some of you have read the story of Akbar and Birbal. Once Akbar put a question, "So if somebody plucks my beard, what should be done?" Everybody said, "Cut off his head." And Birbal said, "No, you might even reward that person." And can you prove it? Yes. So Akbar had his grandson, I forget his name, Kupshu or somebody like that. So he trained him so that this Birbal also had a beard. So every time the baby by mistake pulls the beard of the Birbal, he gives him sweets. So he trained him for some time. Whenever the baby wants some sweets, all that he needs is to pull the beard of Birbal. So nicely trained him. And one day in the full Sabha, court, he brought the boy and let him go to his grandfather Akbar. And the boy straight went and started pulling the beard. Of course, Akbar rewarded him with some sweets. So we are like that people. And there are so many illustrations.

So Holy Mother is considered the most loving mother in the whole world. But there were people who could not approach her, especially the direct disciples. The question of even coming near doesn't arise. This bulky Swami Shardanandaji refuses to prostrate from a long distance. But everybody else is running. And if they are children, they just run. So how do they run? Because they don't consider Holy Mother as a Chidam Mata, Universal Mother, all-powerful. She is one, the source of great joy in the form of good sweets and food, etc. So ignorant people like us, we go. And she also reacts exactly the same way. You must have heard this incident so many times from my own talks. Swami Vivekananda returned from the West and then he went to see Holy Mother. And one devotee also followed him out of curiosity, what happens when this great Swami, world-famous Swami meets Holy Mother. And in those days, Holy Mother was on the first floor of the Udbodhan building, Mayerbadi. And Swamiji, very cheerfully talking about, joking, etc., because he was entering into that deep mood of all-knowing. As soon as he entered Udbodhan, he became extraordinarily serious. And as he put his foot on the steps, his whole body started trembling. And he was putting Ganges water over and again on his body so that he can become purified. Slowly he climbed, made Sastang Pranam, and then, "How are you, Mother? I am fine. My son, how are you?" Only two, three sentences were exchanged. And then he came down. Of course, Holy Mother sent some Prasadam, etc. So, we run to Holy Mother. But how come this great Swami was trembling? Because the more knowledgeable, the more the glory one recognizes, the more one feels hesitant. So, what is the point we are talking about? If we have the slightest one single thread of attachment to this world, we will be forcibly pulled. Shankaracharya gives a beautiful analogy. When an impure person is trying to cross the ocean by swimming across the ocean of samsara, the crocodile of death, even if for one millisecond the person forgets who he is, that moment of ignorance, he will pull that fellow down and devour him. Similarly, we have a story of Shukadeva's birth. It is said that for 16 years he was in the womb of his mother. And the father was getting restless. Why is not my son coming out of the mother's womb? Then he prayed to the Divine Mother, Mahamaya, "Mother, cover him." She said, "Okay, out of love for you, I can only hold him in my Maya Jala just for a fraction of a second." And that second he came out. Like Hanuman, who was caught by Meghnatha, by Brahmastra. This poor Meghnatha does not know that Brahma had given a boon to Hanumantha that only this Brahmastra, it can hold you only for a fraction of a second. Of course, it appears as though he is bound, but he knows I am completely free. But here in this 97th one, what are we talking about? That we have to be extremely careful however much we are doing Japa, Dhyana, meditation. Unless we are so pure, so vigilant, even the slightest one second's forgetfulness.

I can tell you hundreds of stories. There was a sadhu, but I will only tell you just to illustrate, to understand this particular shloka, Karika. There was a sadhu who took a vow, "I will never look at the face of a woman for more than 50 years." He never came out. One day he was sitting, it was evening, and then he heard the sound of anklets. Usually they are worn only by village women when they come out to collect some firewood, etc. This sadhu knew it, but before he could control himself, he ran out of curiosity and saw a woman who was collecting some firewood, and then she was going back to her village, and she had these anklets, and those anklets were making sound. He knew all that, but he could not control himself. Then he understood the power of Mahamaya. So he cut off his feet and said, "From now onwards, you will not move." What is the point of cutting off feet? Because if there is that ignorance, ignorance comes in the form of, you know what? This is what Patanjali Rishi says, avidya. From avidya comes asmita, egotism, and from egotism comes raga and dvesha, likes and dislikes. And from there comes the love of the body, which is the instrument for enjoying or for getting attached or detached from the worldly objects. So we have to be extraordinarily careful. And if we do not get rid of it, the question of avarana chuti, means complete destruction of this ignorance, is impossible. Now, avarana chuti means destruction of the ignorance. Avarana means covering. Remember, avarana shakti and vikshapa shakti. Now, let us keep in mind this word avarana chuti. It is impossible. So this has given a key, as it were, to the opponent. So that means your advaita is a false advaita. Why? Because you say it is impossible to get rid of ignorance. That means how many things are there? Brahman is there, and ignorance is also there. When there are two, the question of advaita will not arise. Only advaita will be there. Without understanding what Gaudapada or advaita acharyas are trying to express, this is what this purvapakshay, who is purvapakshay? Ourselves. We who are studying, we might have, if we do not have doubts, it is not because we have progressed spiritually, because we don't have that capacity even to think and to find out faults. Shankaracharya himself, or Gaudapadacharya himself, raises this point, and then he is talking.

In the 98th,

अलब्धावरणाः सर्वे धर्माः प्रकृतिनिर्मलाः ।

आदौ बुद्धास्तथा मुक्ता बुध्यन्त इति नायकाः ॥ ९८ ॥

alabdhāvaraṇāḥ sarve dharmāḥ prakṛtinirmalāḥ |

ādau buddhāstathā muktā budhyanta iti nāyakāḥ || 98 ||

98. All Dharmas (i.e., Jīvas) are ever free from bondage and pure by nature. They are ever illumined and liberated from the very beginning. Still the wise speak of the Jīvas as capable of knowing (‘the Ultimate Truth’).

That word avarna has come in the 97th. That is why I wanted to draw your attention to it. alabdha avarnaha completely uncovered. There is no cover-up at all. For whom? For everybody that we call a Jeeva. Because all this discussion about advaita is not from the brahman's point of view, but from the transactional point of view. So I am a sadhaka, you are a sadhaka, some people are sadhakas, some people are not sadhakas. So we go on making a distinction. This is rich, this is poor, this is learned, this is ignorant, this is powerful, this is weak, and this is wise, this is unwise, or otherwise, etc., etc.

But what is Gaudapada emphasizing all the time? "Sarve dharmaha" All the Jeevas, first of all, this is a contradiction to Gaudapada's own teaching. There are no dharmas. It appears to be for us. When we stand in front of ten mirrors, we see ten reflections and think that there are ten people. And this "dashamasthomasi" is a marvellous story. We all know that. Hopefully, you remember it. So a peculiar word. He could have very easily substituted it. "Sarve Jeevaha." But he is deliberately using "Sarve dharmaha." All the Jeevas, all the pranis. And we have to take anything that is existing. "Prakruti nirmalaha." By nature. Prakruti means by nature. "Nirmalaha" means completely pure. No mala is there. Last class we explained what is mala. When two things are so close that we mistake that two things have become one. United. That is three types of unity I have told you. That you bring a piece of wood and a piece of metal and then bring them very together. Our houses, our furniture is made up of like that only. They are very near. But both are appearing. We can discern both. That is the lowest type of unity. Second type, you put some either sugar or salt in water or milk and then we don't see both. We see only either water or milk. But where is that sugar, sweetness? It is there. Everywhere. But it is not visible. But it doesn't mean they have become one. They are as separate whether they are outside or the sugar is inside, salt is inside. It doesn't matter really. Because what is the way to know that they can be separated by the process of distillation which Bhagawan Surya Deva is doing all the time. This is the much difficult to discern as the second type of unity. Third type of unity is you pour water into water, milk into milk, oil into oil. Then you will see that they become completely one. So that is the third type of unity which is the real unity. And we have to remember two separate things are not getting united. It is the same thing. Maybe they are Nama and Rupa. There is small tumbler and big tumbler. Both tumblers are having water only or oil only. That is the idea here. "Sarve Dharmaha." All Jeevas. "Prakruti Nirmalaha." So they are by nature absolutely pure. Pure means only one without a second. "Ekam Adhvithiyam." "Ekameva Adhvithiyam." That is the meaning of "Prakruti Nirmalaha." And not only that. "Adhav Buddha." "Adhav" means from the very beginning. They are of the nature of pure consciousness. "Buddha" means enlightened but not in the sense of we have become Jeevas and then we practiced Sadhana and one day we became Brahman. No. It is just like waking up from a dream. Suppose you dream, that you went to America and returned back. The fact is you have never gone there. You are here only but you are only thinking I have gone. And then after some time you wake up and say oh I was dreaming like that. I was imagining like that.

So Brahman had never become Jeeva or Jagat and will never become. It did not become. It is not becoming. It will not become. It is called "Adhav Buddha." And therefore, "Tatha Muktha." Even remember these words are only from our point of view who are ignorant people. "Tatha Muktha." They are liberated. Does Brahman say I am a liberated soul? Who can say I am a liberated soul? Who can say for example I am a happy person? Who can say I was unhappy and something I did or somebody did and I became a happy person. So he should know the previous condition and only it is possible. Now that is not there. "Adhav Buddha." From the beginning I am Brahman. "Aham Brahmasmi." Again from the transactional point of view. Brahman does not sit thinking am I Brahman or not? Have I any doubt whether I am Brahman or not? There is no mind at all. Even "I am that" idea will not be there. This is for our meditation. "Tatha Muktha." They are by nature absolutely free, infinite, one without a second. "Iti Nayaka Budhyante." This is the thought process of Nayaka. Again peculiar word. Usually Nayaka means a leader or the ruler of a state or ruler of a small place, not even a Raja. Here Nayaka means simply a leader. But as I said, this peculiar Nayaka here means those who are what is called totally independent. They are called Nayakas. In other words, Brahma Gnanis. That I am Brahman Nayaka Tatha Budhyante. They understand. When the sadhana is complete, what do they understand? That I was never non-Brahman and I have not done any sadhana. At no time I was a Jeeva and then I did sadhana and then I have become liberated. Such things do not happen. I am from the very beginning that I am Brahman only. Who thinks? Does Brahman think like that? No, no. It is a description by ourselves. So this is all of the Avarana. So this is the what is called answer to as an objectionist that you are telling that some people can never get rid of, destroy the Avarana, the covering that is Avidya. For that he says no, no. There is nobody. In fact the Avarana never came. This is an idea being drilled into our minds as if I have become a covered up person. First I was Brahman then somehow I became a Brahman and now I do some sadhana and then I again become Brahman. I regain my position. There is a beautiful Advaitic work where actually these books have peculiar titles. They are called Siddhis. So "Advaita Siddhi." So "Naishkarmi Siddhi." Etc. There is one particular book. It is called "Swarajya Siddhi." "Swarajya." That is obtainment of one's own kingdom. These are again human words living in ignorance. That is I thought I was ignorant and then I did some sadhana. My Guru had bestowed his grace and then I realized that I am a realized soul. I was always a realized soul. No. So we have to use so long as we think there are many and some are bound, some are not bound and does a person who is bound can he ever recognize who is not bound? It is impossible. So "alabdha avarnaha sarve dharma," everybody.

Now earlier I interpreted it as even what we call non-living. How can non-living be called atma, dharma? If you think deeply, you can also have this kind of doubt. What is the answer, you know? Who is telling that there are living creatures and non-living creatures? Is it according to the Vedanta or is it according to the western type of thinking? It is purely western type of thinking. We have been brainwashed. But how do we justify it? Swami Vivekananda had made it very clear and during my talks also I have been trying to make it, for example if you ask a western scientist what is this mud that is the earth, clay? Is it living or non-living? And of course he says it is non-living. What about water? Non-living. What about fire? Non-living. What about the air? Non-living. So everything is non-living. But they say that inorganic that is one word biologists use, inorganic. And then after some time God knows under certain circumstances, fortuitous circumstances, the life comes out. They become organic. Organic means what? Alive. They have got some organs, some limbs. They become aware. I have got a stomach, I have got a head, I have got eyes, I have got etc, etc. So Swami Vivekananda burst this bubble, pricked this bubble and said so you are saying that this non-living doesn't have prana as its inherent nature. And now the science says that something illogical cannot become logical. So if the non-living is not having life how can it manifest what is not there already? And then only hopefully some people will understand what Swami Vivekananda means. What we mean is that all Jeevas are when they are in complete non-manifest state they are called non-living or what we call jada. But when they start manifesting, sprouting like seed when it comes under the right circumstances wet soil and suitable climate etc it starts manifesting its own nature. So we don't make the difference. We should never make the difference living and non-living. You can say that a growing a seed slowly growing something that is in a seed is unmanifest state that is what modern scientists used to call inorganic, non-living jada. No, there is nothing called jada. Jada simply means that they are not ready to understand or to begin the evolutionary cycle. Even inorganic is also standing on the ladder of this evolutionary escalator. No doubt about it. So this 98th is crashing the objection that there is no ignorance. Ignorance means world. World means creation. There is no such thing at all. From the very beginning Brahman only is there. Brahman only will be there and there is nothing other than Brahman. But because we are still in the grip of this multiplicity Brahman is somewhere I am finite but Brahman is infinite. You ask yourself, are you infinite? Am I infinite? You say I am finite. And ask yourself then what is my idea of Brahman? Oh, it is infinite. So I am finite but Brahman is infinite. Is it possible that in infinite there are two things called one is infinite and another is finite. It is impossible.

Whether it is Shankaracharya, Gaudapadacharya, or any Acharya trying to make the point clear, it is okay so long as we are in ignorance. But at least theoretically, intellectually, we should be able to understand it. What is it? All Jeevas or dharmas are ever free from bondage and ever pure by nature. They are ever illumined and liberated from the very beginning. But still, Nayakas, the wise people, enlightened people, speak of the Jeevas as capable of knowing the ultimate truth. They are speaking because they are wise people. If you say you are Brahman, then we will not understand. But if we say, supposing there is a boy, he wants to be one of the best cricketers or footballers, then in the very beginning itself, you start discouraging him. "You are never ever going to become that famous footballer or cricketer or basketballer," etc. He will get discouraged. Then what should be done? "You are quite capable, but how did that person become?" He practiced it from the very beginning, and you are at the right age. Start practicing, and you will attain, knowing fully well that even though you are Brahman, what you are becoming is not Brahman. You are getting rid of your idea of non-Brahman. This is what they want to say, so this is the reply to the objection that there is no Avarana at all, even of Avarana Chuti or Avarana Nasha. There is no chance for that at all. Then these are just final conclusions of the entire Mandukya Upanishad, especially the explanation from Mantra 7 onwards, where it is said, "Shantam Shivam Advaitam." This is the whole, what is called Vaitadhya Prakarnam, the Agama Prakarnam, Vaitadhya Prakarnam, and Alata Shanti Prakarnam. These are all nothing. Advaita Prakarnam. Alata Shanti Prakarnam is only an elaboration of that 7th Mantra. And then, now he just wants to clarify something,

क्रमते न हि बुद्धस्य ज्ञानं धर्मेषु तापि (यि) नः ।

सर्वे धर्मास्तथा ज्ञानं नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम् ॥ ९९ ॥

kramate na hi buddhasya jñānaṃ dharmeṣu tāpi (yi) naḥ |

sarve dharmāstathā jñānaṃ naitadbuddhena bhāṣitam || 99 ||

99. The knowledge of the wise one, who is all-light, is ever untouched by objects. All the entities as well as knowledge (which are non-djfferent) are also ever-untouched by any object. This is not the view of the Buddha.

Now, there is this verse clarifies one important point, "Naitad Buddhena Bhashitam." Many people are even now under the illusion that Gaudapada either he was what is called a Buddhist in disguise, or he has been deeply influenced by Buddhism, and so he is talking like this because of the certain words he is using. As I mentioned many times, "Dharma" is one word like that. This "Kramate" also is another word. "Tainaha" is another word. So he has borrowed. Why did he borrow? Very simple. If you observe the English language I am using, I am using the language which is current, which is understood by most of the people right now. But if it is 100 years back, "Thou shalt not come to me. I am indeed very with you." This kind of language has to be used because that was present in what is called learned society. And after 100 years, what type of language will come, God alone knows, or he also doesn't know. So here, "Kramate Tainaha," these are some misleading words. So anyway, what does it mean? The knowledge of the wise one who is all light is ever untouched by objects. "Kramate" means untouched.

So, and then he says, "All the entities, as well as knowledge entities and knowledge, are non-different, and are also ever untouched by any object." And this is not the teaching view of the Buddha. Now we have to be extremely careful about this word. Gaudapada is not talking about this Buddha. If anybody understands by this word that this is not spoken by Buddha, meaning Gautama Buddha Siddhartha. Then here Buddha means the four schools of philosophy as we have seen earlier - Yogachara, Madhyamika, etc. - it is their views. But what Buddha said, we are going to discuss it, and from whom? From the very mouth of Sri Ramakrishna himself, what he understood by the word Buddha. So here, "Kramate" means what? It is not influenced, it is not contaminated. The knowledge of the enlightened ones is never made impure by what is called any object in this world. What do you mean by just now we discussed when there are two things, they come together, three types of... they are very near or one is within one of the other, or it is... there is only one object. So, we are talking here that this attachment, the very word objects, just as we have seen in the 98th, there is no object. There are much less many objects, there is no object at all. So, if there is no object, there is no subject also, that means there is no Dwaitam, there is no multiplicity. That is what he wants to convey. Put it in simple words, an enlightened person doesn't see any second object; therefore, the question of his being becoming impure doesn't arise at all. And only an enlightened person is untouched by any object. Contaminated, untouched here means what? Untouched means perceiving that there is something other than me, perception of multiplicity is called untouched. But here, "Sarve Dharma, Sarve Jeevaha," as I said, both the living and non-living, everything in this world is nothing but pure existence. So, a mountain is, and according to Vedanta, the moment we use the word is, that is called Asti, that is called Sat. In the beginning, there was only existence, nothing else was there, that means there was no manifestation, that manifestation is called Dwaitam, multiplicity, Jagat, world, creation, etc. So, not only the enlightened person is free from any contamination of any object, that means he doesn't see a second, but "Sarve Dharma, Tatha Jnanam," the knowledge of every Dharma, that means every Jeeva especially, is also exactly like that. It is the reiteration or repetition of the earlier Karikas also, "Sarve Dharma, Tatha Jnanam." So, all the Jnanam, knowledge also is untouched, that means they are pure because a person can never lose his normal nature, even if the person thinks that he has lost. For example, a normal person had suddenly become an abnormal person, a madcap, but that is according to me and you, according to Sri Ramakrishna, accepting him, including him, everybody is mad, whoever thinks that I am separate from others is a mad fellow, Agnani. In other words, "Sarve Dharma, Tatha Jnanam," the knowledge of everybody also, maybe they are not understanding it properly, but they are, what is called, it is untouched, that means there is no second object, that means Ekameva Advitiyam. And this is the 99th Karika, what is it telling? There is no Jagat, there is no Jeevas, there is no any other Vastu, there is no subject-object division, there is no waking or deep sleep or dream state. Everything is nothing but pure Brahman. "Brahma Eva Asti, Brahma Eva Abhavat, Brahma Eva Bhavishyati.

So, it is beyond time, space, and causation. That's what he wants to tell. "Sarve Dharma, Tatha Jnanam." And then, in the end, he says, "Nayi Tad Buddhena Bhashyatam," and this is not the teaching of Buddha. And as I said here, Buddha means Buddhistic schools of philosophy. That is what we have to understand. As I said, it's peculiar words. "Tainaha" means "Jnaninaha," one who is always... Why he should go to choose of all this, what is called unfamiliar word, God alone knows, and he is not here to answer, so we should not need to waste any time. Who is always dumb, so such a person is called "Tai." "Tai" means "Jnani." So, Buddhistic "Jnanam, Sarve Dharma, Tatha Jnanam," "Nayi Tad Buddhena Bhashyatam," this is not the teaching of the Buddha. But what is the difference between Buddha and Buddhistic schools? Both the Matham and Buddha... Buddha was not a philosopher. Rama was not a philosopher. Krishna was not a philosopher. Ramakrishna was not a philosopher. Swami Vivekananda was not a philosopher. But their teachings have been by the other Acharyas, they have been twisted, divided into Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita, and Advaita. A big debate is going on now. What is the philosophy of Sri Ramakrishna? Is he a Dvaitin, Vishishtadvaitin, or Advaitin? Firstly, is he a Shakta, is it Advaita Shakta, Advaita, or Shankar Advaita, or is he a follower of Ramanuja, because Sri Ramakrishna speaks nothing but Sharanagati. So, what is the philosophy of Sri Ramakrishna? Sri Ramakrishna gives a very peculiar answer, a very interesting answer. So, Yam comments upon it when Brahma Samaj people used to come. Sri Ramakrishna used to talk in such a clever manner. They thought that he was a follower of Samaj. When Shaktas come, he speaks so much about Divine Mother, they were 150% convinced he was a Shakta. When Vaishnava comes, he speaks about Radha Krishna so much and goes into Samadhi and sings so mellifluously, they thought he was a Parama Vaishnava. So, like that, whoever comes, Advaitin comes, he will talk such highest Advaita, he was stunned. But when Advaitin comes, oh, he will go there, he will remove the chappals, he will go to the temple, he will make Pranams, and then he will receive the Prasadam. And a Bhakta, this man, the greatest Bhakta, and this is what I am after, he will be my guide. So, he is everybody to everybody else. What is the philosophy of Ramakrishna? Advaitin comes and asks, "This is what I believe, what do you believe?" "I also believe the same thing." He comes to me, Visishtadvaitin comes, "What do you believe?" "I believe in what you believe." And then, Advaitin comes, "What do you believe?" "I believe what you believe." So, whoever comes, an Nastika comes and says, "I don't believe in God." Ramakrishna says, "I also don't believe in God." What does he mean? He means, "You stupid fellow, I don't believe in God because I am God. There is no other God anyway." So, in this 99th, what he wants to say, that Buddha's teaching was different? No. We are not talking about Buddha, Gautama Buddha, Siddhartha Buddha. We are talking about philosophical teachers who came after Buddha, and he wants to say no school of philosophy was as close to this philosophy called Madhyamika school as propounded by Nagarjuna, the greatest intellectual philosopher. Very close, but there are some differences, and I thought that they are very good differences and very useful also. And from this, Sri Ramakrishna makes certain statements also. We will talk about it in our next class.