Transcript YouTube:
Vedantic Self and Buddhist Non-Self | Swami Sarvapriyananda

Không cần xem cả video — lấy toàn bộ transcript, tìm kiếm từ khóa và sao chép chỉ với một cú nhấp.

Chia sẻ:

AutoDub

Hiểu Video YouTube Nước Ngoài

Lồng tiếng YouTube Immersive bằng tiếng Việt

Vượt qua rào cản ngôn ngữ, khám phá nội dung chất lượng toàn cầu

Dùng Miễn Phí

Transcript Video

Tóm Tắt Video

Summary

Core Theme

This discourse explores the fundamental philosophical divergence between the Vedantic concept of an eternal, unitary self (Atman) and the Buddhist doctrine of "no-self" (Anatman), delving into the historical debates and nuanced interpretations of these ideas, particularly through the lens of Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.

Mind Map

Nhấn để mở rộng

Nhấn để khám phá sơ đồ tư duy tương tác đầy đủ

lead me from the unreal to the real lead

me from darkness unto light

lead us from death to immortality

om peace

good morning everybody namaste good morning

technically not today tomorrow

buddha purnima

it's the day when

when

bhagavan buddha was born

more than 2500 years ago

it's the day when he attained

enlightenment bodhi

and the final nirvana when he left his body

body

so the thrice blessed day

it is celebrated not only in india but

all over the world in the united nations

also a gentleman who works in the united

nations said a couple of years back on

this day he said oh we are celebrating

vesak today

and being from india i didn't quite get

it what was vesak then i of course

immediately thought about it it's

vaishak vaishak vaishaki so

so that

that

in the southeastern uh southeastern

asian countries

um thailand and other places they're

called it's called vesak

and it's widely celebrated across the [Music]

[Music]

southern asia or far east also and now

on this day

uh i usually give a talk about the life

and teachings of the buddha

what i'm going to do today is a little

different you have seen the subject

vedantic self and buddhist non-self

or buddhist no self

that's what we will talk about

why this subject

a couple of reasons one reason is that

it keeps coming up buddhism is so popular

popular and

and

when we talk about vedanta or any of the

one question that will inevitably come

up if you think a little bit about it is

it keep talking about the self the atman

of course selfie the capitalist

nevertheless a self

an independent unitary

unitary

eternal entity exactly what the

buddhists deny

so there is no independent eternal

eternal separate

separate um

self it's exactly the opposite of it's

base fundamentally what buddhism

buddhism is about denying that

according to buddhism there is no such self

self

not only that it would be terrible if

there were

it is the clinging to the concept of

such a self

it is that self clinging which is

samsara you free yourself from that then

you will get liberation it seems to be

just the 100 you know 80 degrees

opposite to what

what

hinduism is saying

so vedantic self i keep talking about

the atman and the buddha keeps buddha

and the buddhists for 2500 years they

keep talking about the anatman not self so

i thought we should talk about it i have

spoken about it on different occasions

but a full talk

also a second reason for this would be

i actually did some work on this a

couple of years back i was part of a

fellowship program at harvard divinity

school so during my time at harvard university

university

um i studied buddhism

buddhism

quite a bit under two different but very

well known professors of course it was

an academic study i am not a buddhist as

you know i'm a

vedantic monk but

but

uh i studied it under

i would say world authorities uh

professor garfield i studied

indo-tibetan madhyama-ka-buddhism

and uh one of the things that i had to do

was work on

chandra kitty's seven point

reasoning the attack on the concept of

the self and

and

what would advaita vedanta say to that

so i wrote this paper called chandra kiti's

kiti's and

and

i remember submitting it to

professor garfield who immediately

rejected it

he said

what do you think this is a

a vedanta society he said without the

temple talk

it's a paper submitted

at harvard university

so you have to do these these things

so i rewrote it again and he promptly

rejected it again

so third time i submitted it

incorporating all his

suggestions which are all very good

and then finally he was happy with it he

said it's a it's a very good defense of

advaita vedanta

he didn't say very good he said good

defense of advaita vedanta

against the tibetan buddhist

uh attack on on the uh

concept of self so because i put in that

work i thought let's just talk about it

for some time um

so let's start with the buddha anyway

2500 years ago

we all know the story how prince

siddhartha in a small north indian

kingdom which is now partly in north

india partly in nepal he was born there

he was a prince and

and

he was always deeply spiritual it was

predicted that he would either become a

world conqueror or a you know world

teacher spiritual master which he became

both you know sort of uh he is the one

of the greatest spiritual masters that

the humanity has known

and his uh has conquered the world i

mean in that sense you know the

influence of buddhism is across the

whole world right here in the united

states for example

2 500 years later he continues to be

highly revered studied taught

commented upon his teachings have been

elaborated endlessly over the last

25 centuries

we know very briefly that he saw these

four sites as a young prince saw an old

person a sick person and a dead person

and then a monk

and then he saw that this suffering is

all pervasive and there is there's a

quest to overcome suffering embodied by

the monk so he decides to become a monk

in search of

a solution to suffering

remember this is remarkable because he

was not suffering

in fact he was having a whale of a time

he he was partying all day and night so

he was married to this beautiful

princess they had a little son rahula

and so on

but he noticed that nobody can escape suffering

suffering

not his his mother he had lost his

mother he when he was young not his parents

parents

who the king and the queen not he

himself the prince

and so he sets out on a quest to

overcome suffering

importantly not just for himself

but for everybody that there should be

an end to suffering because not just my

suffering but suffering per se

then he goes and uh importantly he meets

a number of spiritual masters and he

recounts this later on they were some of

the leading teachers of his time and he

learns from them not satisfied with what

they had taught him not not just the

philosophy but the practices and then he

goes on on his own and finally under the

bodhi tree he discovers the truth the

real nature of the self and the world

what it what is reality and that reality

sets him free so that freedom is called

nirvana bodhi wisdom enlightenment sets

him free

and then he for the next 40 years this

is the first 40 years of his life next

40 years he roams the length and breadth

of north india

and he organizes this huge monastic

order it was initially a very

part of the general society it was not

distinct from hinduism in any way in

those days and it was a very

very

a group of dedicated band of

practitioners were all monks later on

nuns bikunis bhikkhus and bikunis

and lay people and finally it was

codified into this

this

religion on its own the buddha dharma

and from the very beginning it spread

across india and then beyond the

frontiers of

india so kante says

about the the

the

tolerance the acceptance of the hindus

that here is a teacher a prominent

teacher who

who disavows who does not accept the

authority of your texts you know

the vedas and criticizes

the orthodox religion of the time

to your face and he was not only

tolerated he was honored he was

accepted huge numbers of

people converted into buddhism became

buddhists i don't know if at any time

the majority of indians were buddhists

but certainly a very big minority very

large numbers of people they were large

monasteries they were the first

universities of the world huge

universities which came up

uh and and that will play some role in

our talk today and

then buddhism spread across india and

beyond india to sri lanka

the emperor ashoka sent his own son and

daughter as

emissaries of buddhism

to southeast asia to what is now

thailand and burma

and then

later on across the mountains to tibet

this is of course hundreds of years later

later

to tibet to china korea japan

up to the middle east also what was what

is now afghanistan

and in the middle east there are some

records of buddhist monks going as far

as that

so and today it's all over the world

it's here in the united states very

prominent um

dalai lama is one of the most well-known

figures in the world today

all right now

what happened was as the buddhists

buddha and the buddhists after him

advocated the doctrine of

not self or no self anatma i'll use the

term no self no self against the

hindu teaching of a self

the hindus naturally responded

the various schools of hinduism

philosophical schools like the nyaya the

vaisheshika the sankhya and the purvam

imams are these four were prominent in

responding to the attacks from buddhist

schools remember it's not that the

buddhists were only debating with the

hindus multiple buddhist schools came up

which were

engaged with each other in debate

so i remember one class in professor

garfield's class where

one of the buddhist philosophers is

making some attacks on this pers on this

school that school

i don't know what those english terms

mean so i sort of approximate

translations in saskatoon i

thought this was this particular hindu

school that particular hindu school and

professor garfield smiled and said none

of them are hindu schools they are all

buddhist schools so he is attacking

other buddhists

so there was an enormous amount of debate

debate

on various issues one of those issues

one of those issues was the existence of

a self of an atman

and allied to this was the issue it's

actually a secondary issue of uh god

god

because the nyaya school for example

would say

atma there is an eternal self we are an

immortal soul an eternal self

and this eternal self comes in two

varieties two flavors

one is sentient beings like us each of

us individually we are eternal selves

atma and there's one special kind of

atma of which there is only one and

that's god

so god and immortal souls they're all

atmas one is atma one is paramatma

jivatma paramatma this individual

sentient being and the supreme lord

so if you could dismiss the individuals

and eternal individual being

self you could dismiss the god also that

would be another avenue of attack so

these were two areas of attack of debate

between the buddhists and the hindu

schools and among each other also over a

period of 1 000 years

there was a course by professor patil at

harvard which i had i really liked it

intensive course on classical indian

buddhism a thousand years of buddhist

philosophy in sanskrit translated into

incomprehensible english

and endless readings handouts

most of which made very little sense if

you read it in english but

but

still very interesting

this was one of the

golden periods of development of indian philosophy

philosophy

the other one i would say was later in

the medieval period when buddhism at

albert disappeared from india then the

real debate was between the non-dualist

the advaithans and the other schools

the dualist dwightins the

vishishtadwaitin's qualified modest and

various other schools of vedanta and

nyaya attacking non-dualism and so there

was another

burst of development in indian

philosophy so these two uh eras

but primarily the thousand years which

followed the buddha more than thousand

years actually

up to the end of the first millennium um

but what would buddha himself thought

about it i think he wouldn't have had a

very high opinion of all of this

there is

for example in buddha's original

dialogues there is this when he sees

this subtle debates going on

he said oh monks

when you when your house is on fire

would you

debate the nature of fire or would you

when you are shot with an arrow would

you give discourses on arrows or you

know help the uh you know try to take

the arrow out and save yourself

such is the nature of suffering instead

of discoursing on the nature of

suffering on you know subtle discussions

on that one would try to overcome

suffering and so when the buddha was

asked questions like this does the self

exist or doesn't it not will the buddha

be there after death after the death of

the body and so on number of questions

in fact 14 great silences of the buddha there

there

why did the buddha keep silent on these

subjects if you ask the buddha

today's question self or no self

is there a self the buddha's answer

actually was did i say there was

so the monk the baku

jumps to the other conclusion oh so

then he's puzzled

what do you mean there it either is or

there is not

and uh

and then the buddha says and so other

teachers teach this some say there is a

self something there is nothing and they

were they were nihilists or materialists

who said there was no permanent self at

all this matter

so what what are you teaching he says i teach

teach

that there is suffering and there is a

reason for suffering cause and there is

an end to suffering and there is a way

out of suffering the four noble

truths very practical

a practical system of ethics and

meditation designed to take you directly

to enlightenment and freedom

so dukkha suffering first noble truth servant

servant

all is suffering

somebody told me don't translate it as

suffering because a lot of people are

actually not suffering but

just about everybody is dissatisfied

so translate it as dissatisfaction with

state of things and it can intensify

into pain and suffering

then the second one is there is a cause

of this

it's not just random

there's a cause of suffering and that is

the thirst for making this

seeming individual self fully satisfied

with this world

and not being happy if i'm not fully

satisfied all the time like

thinking everybody should be endlessly

nice to me all the time

it sounds ridiculous if i say that but

my behavior seems to show that i

implicitly believe that somebody is

rude to me and i become unhappy for the

rest of the day why

why

because i believe somewhere everybody

all the time should be consistently

endlessly nice to me no

so this thirst that everything should be

perfect for me all the time otherwise

i'm going to be dissatisfied third

is is there an end to this yes

whatever as a cause

can be started and stopped you remove

the cause it'll stop so the end is

called nirvana freedom the

the

endologist heinrich zimmer he says that

the philosophies of india are actually

optimistic they sound pessimistic

because they talk about suffering

but they're optimistic because they all offer

offer

an end to suffering and that there is

and that end is in our own hands it's a

spiritual end in which we can we can

generate ourselves so nirvana it's an

old and very honored term in india there

are many such words nirvana moksha

kaiwalya apavarga they all mean the same thing

thing

and different philosophies had these terms

terms

so nirvana as possible

and then

what is the method

the eight

eight-fold way ashtanga marga i'm not

going to go into that

eightfold way that's the method

one in one medieval philosopher

madhav acharya he wrote this book sarva

darshana sangraha a collection of

different philosophies so at the towards

the end he says

these philosophers are like

chikitsakanamiva just like doctors

what do they do they see the symptom

pain suffering then they identify the

cause what's the disease

desire krishna

then they identify

that whether it's curable or incurable

and they come to the conclusion it's

curable there is nirvana moksha

you can attain

peace and fulfillment you can go beyond suffering

suffering

and then is there a treatment yes there

is a treatment that is the marker the way

way

so buddha is like that the symptom

the cause the cure and the treatment

so that was the buddha and the buddhist

sangha which came up about 500 years

after the buddha

the greatest of the buddhist

philosophers i would say there are many

many great philosophers

naga juna [Music]

extraordinary people whose

value we are only now beginning to uh

you know sort of excavate actually

you have to do a little bit of

philosophical you know like

archaeological digging philosophical

digging to see

how remarkable they were and

and

just about every philosophical point of

view under the sun today had already

been discussed threadbare in ancient

india more than 1500 years ago but among them

them

shines undisputed brightness is

nagarjuna who lived in the south

of india

in what is now andhra and

and

he is famous for his book the moolah

madhyamaka karika mulla madhyama

kakarika so the kind of buddhism which

traces itself back to nagarjuna he was

just elaborating the teachings of the buddha

buddha

so it is called madhyamaka buddhism

madhyama literally means the middle path

that's the middle path here middle path

philosophically between the two extremes of

eternalism hindus

and nihilism that nothing exists like

the materialists

there's no truth at all there's nothing

that's materialism he says no there is

there is a transparent uh spiritual

truth which will set you free

but it's not what the other schools

the orthodox schools of hinduism are

saying that there is one separate

limited self you know there's a body

there's a mind and there is an atma

not like that

so the middle path madhyamaka middle

path philosophically

nagarjuna took buddha's silence

philosophically why did buddha keep

quiet one reason was practical be

spiritual get enlightenment

but also

the silence was the correct answer to

these questions

because any answer you express in

language is actually logical if you want

a very precise logical answer it will be wrong

wrong

whatever you say if you say there is no atma

atma wrong

wrong

why is that so how can you logically

formulate the truth so that was nagarjuna's

nagarjuna's

effort what he tried to do

um he also

if you see the book moola democracy it's

fascinating philosophers i think

especially nowadays and so many

philosophers are fascinated with it

it's entirely negative

it demolishes everything he says

shunyata sarvadrishthinam the emptiness

of all philosophies

not only philosophies whatever we think

and do in daily life all of it is full

of contradictions

one reason might be because

of these all these subtle discussions he

wanted to show that you will not come at

a formulated philosophy linguistically

formulated philosophy which will

adequately grasp the truth you can't do it

even simple things cannot be grasped by logic

logic

demolishes concept of a self atma he

demolishes the concept of dharma he

demolishes the concept of tata buddha

he is buddhist

and demolishes the concept of the four

noble truths

demolishes the concept of nirvana freedom

freedom

but what he is doing is not that they

are wrong he's saying the way you're

trying to express them and limit them

this is what buddha taught that doesn't

work why it doesn't work he will show

even common things like walking like

walking just walking the ordinary

walking that we do he says even that's

full of contradiction i'll give you a sample

sample

of nagarjuna today quickly

so he says

we say the walker is walking

and his question is who is walking well

the walker is walking

but the walker is defined as somebody

who's walking right

who already has the property of walking

his action of walking is inherent in the

workers see he's using language which

was used by the nyayas so in the ayah

school you need to know little bit of

naya philosophy they were realists they

took the common sense experience of the

world as real and described it with

their philosophy

so action in hers action is there in the

agent you are walking so there is an

action called walking

it's really there and where is it it's

in you

everything has to be clear

there is a person who's walking walking

is an action where is the action can't

be in the road it must be in you

so you are the walker and walking is in you

you

nagarjuna asks so you're the walker yes

how do you define as the walker the one

was the property of walking now you say

who is walking the walker is walking so

there is two walkings

one the walker has the property of

walking in you

and then the walker is walking so there

are two walkingstone dwight

did he walk twice

said no no no he walked only once so it

is the person who was not walking that

person walks so the not walker walks do

you see the contradiction in that [Music]

[Music]

he said no no i mean it's just a person

there's no such thing as walking in him

so where is the walking is in the road

is the road walking

so he goes you see the whole book is

like that

so if you ask him he has he developed

this what is called chatushkoti the four

options or the four alternatives a very

powerful logical tool

uh he does about 2000 years ago where

any question you throw at him any

philosophy he tears it to pieces based

on these four alternatives what are the

four alternatives suppose some say

something like um

there is god

he will show

that it is wrong that there is god

oh so you are trying to show you are a

buddhist you don't believe in god there

is no god he says it is wrong to say

that there is no god

also then god both is and is not it's a

contradictory statement how can god both

be and not be so it is wrong to say that

god is and is not

so is it that god neither is nor is not

and he said no that even that is wrong

it's not that god neither is nor is not

so these are the four alternatives you

say there is a self he says no i will

show that there cannot be an atman as

you will see how he will show there

can't be a self so there is no self no

atma no that's also wrong it's not that

there is no atma so there both is a self

and not there is no self so that's

obviously contradictory so it's not that

there is a self and there is no self so

the opposite of that you deny that there

is neither a self nor not a self he says

neither that also chatushkoti

the reality is beyond the four alternatives

alternatives

beyond the four alternatives is reality

that's what he calls shunyam emptiness

emptiness is if you examine any view any

philosophical view which is positively

stated he says i can demonstrate

logically that it falls apart and that

that's the emptiness of that view

somebody says wait a minute your

philosophy mr nagarjuna professor

nagarjuna let's say professor nagarjuna

your philosophy your view

so that according to you that's also

should be empty

says ah

emptiness of all views if i had a view

you could cut it down but since i have

no view you can't cut it down

so this is a kind of debate in ancient india

india

it was called vitanda

to understand this there were three

kinds of debates which were popular

vada jalpa

vitanda why there was a debate between

the people who were trying to

find the truth inquiry

you could shift your positions and learn

and change your ideas and all of that

then that's the best kind of debate and

ideally debates were supposed to be like

that but practically they were not the

second kind of debate was

jalpa where

you had your position and your opponent

has it has

their position and then you debate you

try to establish your position and cut

down the opponent's position the

opponent tries to establish their

position and cut down your position

uh swapshastapanam parapakshaddusanam

that is the and there are so many

techniques and rules

and these ancient debates were like

gladiatorial com combats intellectual

um so they're very sophisticated system

of debate and it was a wonderful thing

it prevented a lot of you know crudeness

and violence in ancient india so you

only experts engaged in this

and it would be conducted at a very high

level of sophistication

sometimes they actually met and

discussed these things sometimes it was

in writing

the third kind of debate which nagarjuna

is doing is called vitanda vitanda means

i have no position i just cut down

whatever you say

that sounds very rude but actually

that's a very sophisticated form of

philosophy that any kind of

philosophical position is bound to be

false you state it i'll show you that it

is false i'm not saying that there's no

truth but the truth lies beyond your

philosophical positions

so nagarjuna is a classical case of ah

of a bhitanda type of debate another one

well known as sri harsha who was

interestingly an advaithin non-dualist

and he follows the same technique

whatever position you have i'll show you

it's wrong

and by that what i'm trying to teach

non-dual vedanta will stand

automatically established i don't have

sriharsha is one of the very few

classical indian hindu philosophers

who says nagarjuna is right

he says at the very beginning with the madhyamakas

madhyamakas

that means nagarjuna's followers we have

no quarrel he says at the beginning of

his text

his text is kandana

the cookies of refutation

kandakadya means sweets or cookies

so the book is called the cookies of the

delicious of refutation of cutting down

delights in cutting down other people's views

so nagarjuna wrote this book

23 chapters all entirely negative and

whatever philosophy you could have

including very fairly just about all

buddhist approaches he cuts it down

now he had commentators those who

developed his philosophy further not too much

much

the major person whom we are interested

in today is chandra kirti chandra kitty

one of the greatest buddhist philosophers

philosophers today

today because

because he

lived about 1500 years ago

he did not have much of a following in india

india

but later on his work took a new life

in tibet basically

orthodox tibetan buddhism today his

holiness the dalai lama and the uh monks

who follow him

the philosophy which he teaches is based

on chandra kitti's interpretation of

nagarjuna's interpretation of the buddha

buddha let's not forget the buddha buddha

i can imagine buddha tearing his hair i

and nagarjuna says you did just keep

quiet let me explain it to them

so buddha the naga nagarjuna 500 years

after the buddha and about 400 years

after nagarjuna's chandra kitty who was

also born in the south of india

i think he converted to buddhism

and then he rose to great prominence as

a buddhist teacher as a monk

and then he studied and he taught at the

famous university of nalanda

which is in bihar today bihar the word

bihar also comes from it means buddhist

monastery vihara where thousands of

buddhist monks used to stay together

some of these

monasteries became universities nalanda

vikram sheila odantapuri dakshashila so

huge university systems nalanda

when nalanda was finally destroyed

by muslim invaders around 12th 13th

century bhakti archaeology he raised the

i mean for them they were all you know

heretics and carpets so no distinction

between buddhists hindus whoever

so just

kill them and wipe out destroy the

monasteries by that time already

buddhism was sort of very faint in hindu

it had

diminished greatly

and the nalanda was destroyed they said

it burned for weeks or months they had a

seven story library they say

that has not yet been excavated if you

go that's one of the wonders of the

world they have excavated a university

which was established 1500 years ago

lasted for nearly 800 years a university and

and

one kilometer long and that's only one

tenth of the university that the rest

still lies underground

if you go there eleven thousand students

used to study

all male of course in those days

and each had his own room

so individual rooms if you go there

you'll see little and pretty nice rooms

and we were lucky what they did was when

the universe the rooms and the buildings got

got damaged

damaged

instead of demolishing them and

repairing them what they did was they

built over them

so nowadays it's great for

archaeologists because if you dig deep

down you find newer and newer universities

universities so

and you can see

the last modifications the last

iteration of naland university is pretty

crude compared to the original one so

clearly the patrons the kings the kings

it was

royal patronage so

clearly the kings were less powerful

rich less rich

so but at that time nalanda was rising

1500 years ago when chandra kitty was there

there and

and

he became one of the greatest teachers

that nalanda had

and the abbot with something like the

head of the department of buddhist

studies or something but there was

something more than buddhist studies

also if you go to nalanda

you will find

in there's a little museum

with not only buddhist artifacts but

also hindu artifacts clearly

non-buddhist artifacts

chandra kitty rose to great prominence

there and is a very well-known teacher

why am i going on about chandra kirti because

because

he wrote some books

uh commentaries on nagarjuna

which finally

sort of faded into obscurity the debate

took on different uh forms

and then slowly the purva memsa school

led by kumari lapatta and then

shankaracharya vedanta school it came to

prominence buddhism declined and finally disappeared

disappeared

around 12th century when nalanda was

finally destroyed and raised to the ground

ground

it's interesting that's when the oldest

university in the west

oxford the oldest college in oxford

belial college

that was coming up in the 13th century

in england i went to england i saw the

college and saw the date twelve hundred

eighty or something

that's around the time that nalanda

finally collapsed

i think all those professors must have

been reborn in

to carry on their work [Music]

[Music]

it's not

impossible because mashaaradha

she went on a tour of the buddhist the

ruins of the buddhist monasteries once

and there were a group of english men

and women who were also touring at that

time and the english men and women were

oohing and eyeing about all these

ancient relics and then

she was smiling they asked her why she's

smiling and she said she said something

very cryptic look at them

they are the ones who built all this and

now they come and wonder at their own handiwork

handiwork

so maybe there are these ancient souls who

who

who've been

that's really tenure

lasting for thousands of years across

lifetimes you become a professor

all right i've been avoiding starting

the subject now let's let's start

so this chandra kitty what he did was

he focused his attack on the concept of

self atma

and this he did

by the seven point reasoning the seven

point reasoning which i will run through

quickly now and then give a reaction

from a advaita perspective

just by the way why reaction from the

advaita perspective i do have to do this

because there is really no cogent

reaction from the advaita perspective

those who debated against chandra kitty

and other buddhist philosophers where

the hindu nayaka sankhyas and the

purvamam sakkas advaita

was what you might call a johnny come lately

lately

so by the time shankaracharya came and

the followers of shankaracharya and it

flowered the buddhists were already

fading away

so there wasn't a long consistent

debate there was but not enough

so buddhists had no time to react

against what these new vedantists were

saying the advaitans the new

formulations of vedanta they had no time

to react and the advaita reactions

against the buddhists if you see the

classical texts they're very dismissive

that these people are nihilists they're

saying that there's no nothing real

which is unfair because nagarjuna

dismisses that he says we are not

nihilists we're just saying even that is

not true that there's no truth that's

not true there is a particular truth

that's also not true so now

now

so well i'll

walk through chandra kitty's

presentation of his attack

chandra kitty's works

have now become very important because

they were transmitted to tibet and the

greatest llamas in the tibetan tradition

they built upon chandra kitti's work so

according to them chandrakriti is the

right interpretation of nagarjuna who is

the right interpretation of buddha if

you want to understand buddha

philosophically you understand nagarjuna

you want to understand nagarjuna

philosophically you understand chandra kitty

kitty

among the great

tibetan masters

of course there was no connection

between them

who were in the high

tibetan plateau himalayan plateaus five

six hundred years ago working there on

chandra kitty

for them india was this fabled land um

cut off by the time india had descended

into tumult invasion warfare and general

collapse and the establishment of the

new mughal empire and all so they had

sort of lost touch with india and indian

the buddhists also disappeared so the

indians in general also had little

interest in the tibetan buddhists so

they were cut off

but they developed indian thought they

preserved it and developed it

many of these texts were later recovered

from tibet they had been lost when the

libraries in india had been burned

so the

important ones whom we studied at

harvard the tibetan

tibetan masters

masters

song khapa who lived about 600 years ago

he is deserves to be widely known across

the world because

what nagarjuna is to

buddhism tibet i mean indian buddhism

what shankaracharya is to vedanta

sankhapa is to tibetan buddhism is that

so for example the school that he

is the founder of our the main

philosopher that's the school of the

dalai lama there are multiple schools of

tibetan buddhism there's sarkyapa the

kagyupa there is the ningmapa and the

galagpa the galoopa is a development

based on the work of songkappa the

galoopa is the school of

the dalai lama and the dalai lama always

comes from the

their particular monks if you you can

you can see them with the yellow hats so

they're the gallup monks

they revere chandra kitty like nothing i

mean they're like the greatest

philosopher from india for them

nagarjuna and chandra kitty

so what i'm saying is the development of

chandra kitti's work the commentaries of sankhapa

sankhapa another

another great

great

tibetan master meepham who came later

who is sort of who takes into account

multiple tibetan views and syncretizes

them into sort of harmonizing tibetan views

views

and an opposite view the karma palama um

who is

the ninth karmapa

wang zhuk doji

who lived up i think 400 years ago or so who

who

in fact attacked sankhapa

so interpreting buddhism also there's a

lot of debate

on all of this is based what i'm going

to say why this

because i worked on it of course but

also this is one of the most

sophisticated attacks on the concept of atma

atma

and we are going to see one of the most

sophisticated the most sophisticated

defense of the concept of atma so this

is what we are going to see

um the seven point reasoning of chandra kitty

kitty

what is he going to refute that there is

no independent self you are there he

doesn't deny but the idea that i am an

immortal soul i am an atma i exist

eternally i am not the body not the mind

then this self what is its relation to

you clearly you are there

and yet you think you are an atma so

what is that relationship of the atma to

this body mind

um just by the way i will keep saying

body mind because it's easiest for us

the buddhists not just tibetan buddhists

not just chandra kitty all buddhists

they talk about the five aggregates

instead of body mind they analyze it

into five aggregates or five pillars or

five heaps

what is this body mind first rupa skanda

physical body the form

the rupas gandha

uh physical body the body aggregate then

there is vedana's kanda that is feelings

feelings

pleasurable painful neutral the

sensations we get

vedanas ganda then there is

sanskaraskanda thoughts in our mind

mental formations

that's the third one mental

mental the

the

pillar the agreement aggregate mind

aggregate then we are aware

we are aware all the time consciousness

vigonas kanda

but this awareness remember these are

flashes of consciousness moment to

moment to moment

um then the last one is the

the

uh began as kanda and then the

the um

the rupa vezana

uh the sanghya sanghya is the

the

the samskara and sangha the two kinds of

mental scandals are there so the

conditioning mental conditioning and

samskaras and sangia is the thoughts and

feelings we get the mind

mind

uh all the perceptions which come

the five senses plus the mind the six

kinds of perceptions we have internal

thinking and

the things which are coming from outside

that's called the sangha so

so rupas kanda

vedanas kanda sanggyas kanda samskar

skanda and vignan

this together is exactly they're just

trying to describe what you feel what i

feel right now

i'm just going to call it body mind

okay that's easiest body mind chandra

kriti would have said panchayat the five

skanders five aggregates but just the

same thing body mind

for example we study vedanta we all know

pancha kosha it's pretty similar not

exactly the same but pretty similar

physical body

the anna maya kosha food sheath then the

vital body prana maya the vital sheath

then the mental body

the uh the manomaya then the intellect

understanding the gyanamaya and then the

causal body the anandamaya

but again you can just call it body mind

just what we have right now

so what is the relationship of self atma

with this body mind

that is the question he's going to

examine this to examine this chandra

kitty uses the example of a chariot

um so a chariot and it's parts why a chariot

chariot

i guess chariot was the most

sophisticated cool thing you had in

those days today you would have said an

suv or something like that but it works

like that an suv and its parts you know

the body of the suv the wheels and the

axle and the engine and steering and all

of that

and where is the suv the question is

what is the relationship of the chariot

to its parts

where is the

self what is the relationship of the so

called self atma to the body mind with

body mind everybody agrees it's there

nobody denies it

but what is the relation of the self to the

the

the hindus

and then by hindus whom do i mean foreign

they all claim that apart from the body-mind

body-mind

body mind and there is atma

what is the nature of the atma some will

say it's pure consciousness what not but

it's there separate independent

interacting all together so you have a

trichotomous personality that is

physical body

subtle body that is mind and the atma

chandra kitty says not at all let's see

let's take a look first

first

seven point reasoning

first point the

the

um chariot

is the same as its parts

and he says it can't be so second point

i'll explain second point the chariot is

something apart from its parts that's

even more ridiculous

then the chariot is something that con

that that is contained in the parts it

can't be so the chariot is something

that contains its parts it can't be so

then the chariot is something that

possesses its parts you know these are

my parts like my hand my hair like that

can't be so and then the sixth one would

be the chariot is just a collection of

its parts that also is not possible and

chariot is some just the shape that

emerges from its parts the chariot is

the shape the configuration of its parts

that also is not possible these are the

seven ways in which a chariot can be

there can be related to the parts

and none of them are viable chandra kit

is going to show exactly like that there

is seven ways you can talk about an atma

none of them are logical so there is no atma

atma

so this is the outline let me dive into it

it first

first

the chariot is the parts uh is it

literally the parts

that is not true um

just the paths themselves of the charge

then why would you use a term like

chariot it's literally the axle and the

wheels and all and that's that that's it

why why we call it a chariot

if body mind is atma atma is literally

body mind then several problems emerge

and notice

all the hindus also agree with you in

the buddhist also

atma is not body mind but he's just

considering the possibilities the

buddhist themselves chandrakeet himself

says if you just call this atma

first of all it's a he calls it this

redundant redundancy then just call it

body call it mind why are you calling it

atma literally is nothing more to atma

than this then that's just the atma

then just just the body mind why call it

atma at all

then next it's not immortal

it's not immortal you always claim it's

an immortal atma it's not immortal you

also admit body dies

third um

third is

that you always feel atma is one

it is one indivisible the body is many

it's complex

it's enormous number of parts

interacting changing all the time how

can it be the atma you are talking about

notice advaita vedanta if you remember

aparok chanubuti classes shankaracharya

uses the same argument

atma is one the body is constituted of

then many other problems like hindus

buddhists also believe many lives are there

there

if many lives are there the body does

not go across many lives body dies at

the end of this life then it can't be

the atma you're saying atma persists

over many lives and then this body does

not perceive so so obviously pretty

obviously the body is not the atma the

way you think

you have the

self eternal self oneself no

it's not there so the first point

the chariot

and the parts are not the same i mean

the the chariot cannot be the parts

this is the first point was the chariot

is the parts not possible the

atma is body-mind not possible

and here is no real difference because

all the other hindu schools including

the advaithans would clearly agree on

the same grounds that the body-mind is

not atma is not the self good we are

agreed here next

let's go on

the next option

the chariot is something different from

the parts

and chandra kirti says that's ridiculous

you can even bring it available and keep

it in the in the hall because there's it

won't take any space at all the space is

taken only by the parts where is the

chariot apart from the parts

parts

so there is no chariot apart from the

parts of the chariot clearly

clearly

where is this atma apart from the body

here was the biggest attack this is the

central attack of the buddhist you talk

about body mind i agree there is a body

there is a mind there are the five

aggregates but apart from this what is

the atma you're talking about

demonstrate it

nothing that you want to talk about

future lives

memory all of those things don't require

a separate independent eternal atma we

can demonstrate we buddhist can

demonstrate multiple lifetimes memory

all of these are possible without an

independent separate atma in fact with

an independent separate abnormal these

are not possible

so there's a lot of discussion about this

this [Music]

[Music]

at this point you might think swami so

many years you have been telling us not

the body not the mind i'm the witness

the consciousness drink dris

whatever you see is an object that which

sees is separate from the object

didn't you tell us what about those arguments

arguments

see here in the scene you remember

drikdrishaveka i am the witness whatever

his experience is an object i am the

witness and the experiencer i am the

awareness to which all these objects

appear and this witness the

seer must be on principle separate from

the scene

or the panchakusha famous five sheets of

the human body

and the witness consciousness of that

how many times have you told us the

story of the tenth man

separate you could not separate it

because you are looking at the object

this is the subject so you separate it's

separate from the body-mind

or avastatria witness of waking dreaming

deep sleep

so isn't it separate from all of it the consciousness

consciousness

actually you know no it isn't

the swami you're pulling a fast one on us

now there's a point to it we'll see the

point later on but it isn't

if you remember after carefully

analyzing the body mind and showing that

you the self cannot be the body mind you

are separate you are one the body is

many you are unchanging the body is

changing you are the witness the body is

the witness you are aware the body is

not aware

so all of these arguments he shows to

show that you are not the body

but if you remember

the 40th 41st 42nd verse of upper

auction of the very crucial

he says there quite puzzlingly what good

is all this

kim purushartha what will be served you

have just proved that there is an atma

and there is a world and two separate

realities it's not nonduality

then why do you do this

there's a reason why why the advaitans

do it in order to counter those who say

body mind is the atma

our common our unreflective state of

awareness is that i am this one

so i am body i am mine to convince us

this is this can't be true that's the

only reason the advaitans

attack the concept of body mind and self

the self cannot be body mind

then what is the self we'll come to that

so actually this is where the

buddhists and the advaitans together

differ from the hindu dualists

the hindu dwellers the nayakas the

sankhyas yoga vaishaishika they all

insist there is a self separate from

body mind atma

atma and

and

then they engage in

long debate nearly thousand years debate

culminating with masters like

udayanacharya on the niya side who gave

multiple proofs this whole book which is

still studied in postgraduate philosophy

departments in india

indian philosophy departments

and it is manjali

nine proofs of the existence of god

against the buddhists

multiple proofs of the existence of a

separate eternal independent soul

atma against the buddhists

so it's called atma tatwa viveka

extremely subtle argument does it work

according to the nayakas it does

according to most unbiased observers

swami vivekananda points it out in the

fourth lecture on practical vedanta a

tremendous buddhist attack

here is the world it's a mass of change

here is the body it's a mass of change

here is the mind it's a mass of change

physical matter mental the um

stream of change apart from this where

is this atma

use the vedantic logic oh but who is the

witness of all of this that's the logic

i can see people vigorously yes we have

heard you so many years last five six

years you have been telling us the

witness of all of this

not the object you are the tenth man

witnessing all of this

now don't get scared i'm going to cut

that down it's it's

it isn't true

why not you see let's see

and this can be quite

scary and traumatic for hindus

but the reason i'm doing this is at the

end of this process we end up with a

deeper understanding of what vedant

advaita vedantasi

we are going to leave the poor dualists

out in the cold but

but

we are going to see what advaita vedanta

really means and

the emptiness school of buddhism what

they really mean so

i'll quote vivekananda again this idea

that i'm a continuous consciousness

literally i'm quoting vivekananda it

seems he's saying anti-vedantic things

this idea that i'm a continuous

consciousness and thoughts feelings body

they're all continuously changing and

i'm witnessing them he says

it works as an argument

but nobody in practice can separate the two

two

i am the witness of anger hate joy peace

restless mind i i say these things

restless mind you are the one who

experienced it um peaceful mind you are

the one who experienced it waking

dreaming deep sleep you are the one who

experienced it but vivekananda says and

chandra kitty would say

he doesn't say because he never engaged

with this but

he would say

if they are separate show them separately

separately

if two things are separate my cloth

and my cap are separate

i can show you the cloth without the cap

i can show you the cap without the cloth

then i can demonstrate you can

experience this separate existence

show me

pure consciousness without any contents

show me the contents of consciousness

without consciousness

you can't nobody can

because they don't exist separately

chandra kitty has this thing so what's

going on here if i am experiencing the

changing world and if you are saying

that i am not unchanging one unchanging

consciousness you can't show them

separately i see that you can't show

them separately um

but then what's going on here how do you

explain this chandra kitty has

an analogy which vedantins for good

reasons never use

the sheaves of hay leaning against each other

other

you know hey

you bundle them up and keep them like this

this

but if you pull out one what happens to

the other one it falls

you the experiencer you the

consciousness and that the experience

that the object of consciousness they

lean against each other remove one the

other will fall you are the seer of what

nagarjuna would say you see

right i'm seeing hearing smelling

tasting touching what forms sounds

smells tastes

form sounds taste do they exist without

you the consciousness i can't say that

you the seer and the hearer and the

smeller and the taster

is it possible that you exist without

the objects which you are seeing hearing

smelling tasting

difficult to say

we vidantins will say no no no you know

it's like

when the object is gone

you are no longer the seer of the object

but you remain

not as a seer anymore

but then that's a kind of um

you know like a

accounting they do a little bit of back

calculation to make things fit make the

swami vigna

when he was swami in alhabad he had his

own ways he would keep books of account

and then one day he couldn't make five rupees

rupees

you know he couldn't account for five

rupees then he put it down gok account

five five rupees somebody asked him

what's the gok account swami he says god

i am unchanging consciousness illumining

all the changing phenomena of the world

suppose the changing phenomena of the

world are not there can you show you

yourself as unchanging consciousness

sure in deep sleep changing phenomena of

the world stop and

and

and i

shine forth into the blankness

how do you know

well i wake up and i tell you this

that's how i know

no no no no

and that might be all right you might

believe in that but that's not good philosophy

philosophy

i remember

when i entered the madhyamaka class

emptiness class on emptiness so can you imagine

imagine

intense class on nothingness you ask

what are you studying there debating

fiercely nothing it's all empty

the professor told me keep your

an advice outside the door swami because

he knew i would mix it up with this so

but interestingly outside the class just

outside the harvard yard i ran into this

buddhist lama

lama migmar if you look him up later on

i realize he's quite an imminent person

he is the buddhist chaplain tibetan

buddhist chaplain for harvard university

i just ran into him in the street and he

looked at me and said what are you doing

here i said i'm studying your philosophy

and he was very happy he wanted to know

which books i'm studying and all of that

and he recommended some more books

and then he said but you are a

non-dualist an advisor monk i said yes

and but how it's the same we'll come to

it at the end

so the second one that

that

you are apart atma self is apart from

body and mind

all the arguments that i have given are

logically good vivekan themselves says but who has ever seen it separately

but who has ever seen it separately the pure consciousness by itself it

the pure consciousness by itself it can't be logical you can't exp even if

can't be logical you can't exp even if it's there you can't experience it

it's there you can't experience it you need body mind to certify

you need body mind to certify then chandra kitty says we are back to

then chandra kitty says we are back to the hails the sheeps of hay

the hails the sheeps of hay one depending on the other

one depending on the other how do you know one exists without the

how do you know one exists without the other

other then the third option is

then the third option is well does the chariot exist in the parts

well does the chariot exist in the parts you know there is i see the parts so in

you know there is i see the parts so in that there is a suv there is a chariot

that there is a suv there is a chariot in in the parts of the chariot

in in the parts of the chariot one

one commentator tibetan commentator he says

commentator tibetan commentator he says like a bowl in which berries are kept so

like a bowl in which berries are kept so the parts of the chariot are there in

the parts of the chariot are there in that there is a chariot obviously not

that there is a chariot obviously not that that's silly that relationship is

that that's silly that relationship is also not there

also not there and the atma also

and the atma also nobody till today if you say body mind

nobody till today if you say body mind is there there is an atma search the

is there there is an atma search the body

body however much you search the body do

however much you search the body do surgery find out here in the heart

surgery find out here in the heart somewhere the heart atmos there or in

somewhere the heart atmos there or in the brain somewhere inside there is the

the brain somewhere inside there is the atma

atma philosophers have thought about it

philosophers have thought about it pineal gland

pineal gland descartes the point of the interaction

descartes the point of the interaction of the mind and body things like that

of the mind and body things like that but nothing it's just body the more and

but nothing it's just body the more and more you search it's just body

more you search it's just body one

one doctor from scotland indian doctor he

doctor from scotland indian doctor he wrote to me that i had an epiphany i had

wrote to me that i had an epiphany i had been examining scans of the body for the

been examining scans of the body for the last few decades in my career just today

last few decades in my career just today i saw a scan and just struck me

i saw a scan and just struck me i am not that

i am not that there's no me in any of that it's just a

there's no me in any of that it's just a machine it's a thing

machine it's a thing it's a thing

it's a thing true there is no atma in this body

true there is no atma in this body i mean literally speaking we talk about

i mean literally speaking we talk about in there you know vedantic language you

in there you know vedantic language you are the atma in there

are the atma in there inner self

all right i'll take you seriously show me literally show me where is it inner

me literally show me where is it inner how is it inner

the self is the passenger and the

and the body is the chariot

body is the chariot curiously chandra kitty's chariot

curiously chandra kitty's chariot doesn't have a passenger

doesn't have a passenger very tellingly

very tellingly so

so passenger is in the suv in the chariot

passenger is in the suv in the chariot good let me exact let's examine the

good let me exact let's examine the chariot let's examine the body where is

chariot let's examine the body where is the passenger

the passenger so no no no it's not the body you don't

so no no no it's not the body you don't understand it's the mind you're in the

understand it's the mind you're in the mind examine the mind where is the

mind examine the mind where is the where is the atma you find only thoughts

where is the atma you find only thoughts memories ideas pleasure pain desire

memories ideas pleasure pain desire waking dreaming sleeping where is atma

waking dreaming sleeping where is atma in the mind

in the mind where is this internal soul unchanging

where is this internal soul unchanging independent soul in the mind

independent soul in the mind david hume

david hume the great scottish philosopher he says i

the great scottish philosopher he says i examine my internal states and i find a

examine my internal states and i find a steady precision

steady precision of dispositions thoughts memories

of dispositions thoughts memories perceptions i find nothing corresponding

perceptions i find nothing corresponding to a self

um at this point you might say swami tenth

at this point you might say swami tenth man observer i know but we won't go

man observer i know but we won't go there so

there so atma is not something contained chariot

atma is not something contained chariot is not contained in the parts like a

is not contained in the parts like a like as the tibetan llama said like a

like as the tibetan llama said like a bowl and with berries in it there is the

bowl and with berries in it there is the parts of the chariot in that there is a

parts of the chariot in that there is a chariot no

chariot no then this is the uh what is the third

then this is the uh what is the third option the fourth option is the reverse

option the fourth option is the reverse the parts are contained in the chariot

the parts are contained in the chariot so chariot is the basis on which the

so chariot is the basis on which the parts exist that's also ridiculous i

parts exist that's also ridiculous i mean what does it mean

mean what does it mean it's like saying there is a car in which

it's like saying there is a car in which there are the parts

there are the parts you might say it like that but you can't

you might say it like that but you can't talk of it you can't show me any

talk of it you can't show me any anything's like a car apart from the

anything's like a car apart from the parts you can show me a

parts you can show me a a bowl apart from the berries but you

a bowl apart from the berries but you can't show me a car apart from its parts

can't show me a car apart from its parts car is not a bowl in which the berries

car is not a bowl in which the berries are put now this is actually a subtle

are put now this is actually a subtle point when you come to the atma because

point when you come to the atma because vedantins talk about mystics talk about

vedantins talk about mystics talk about the ground of all existence as if there

the ground of all existence as if there is a ground on which

is a ground on which everything has been put

everything has been put so

so atma is the ground of all existence

atma is the ground of all existence so is there any such ground on which

so is there any such ground on which body mind has been put there is an atma

body mind has been put there is an atma on which body mind rests

on which body mind rests well vedantins don't mean it in that way

well vedantins don't mean it in that way we'll come to that what vedantins mean

we'll come to that what vedantins mean but as a ground as a basis on which the

but as a ground as a basis on which the parts exist there's there's no such

parts exist there's there's no such chariot there's no such atma on which

chariot there's no such atma on which the body mind hands and feet and

the body mind hands and feet and thoughts and all are put like a like a

thoughts and all are put like a like a table and the table is the self no such

table and the table is the self no such thing is there who has ever seen such a

thing is there who has ever seen such a thing

thing that's the fourth one fifth one was

that's the fourth one fifth one was no no no you are just twisting my words

no no no you are just twisting my words the

the dualist will say why when i say atma

dualist will say why when i say atma when i say soul i mean i

when i say soul i mean i i am the possessor of this body mind in

i am the possessor of this body mind in my body my hands my ears lama sanghapa

my body my hands my ears lama sanghapa says sam kappa he says like devadatta

says sam kappa he says like devadatta who says my ears

who says my ears so

so uh like that

uh like that and sounds interesting how the tibetans

and sounds interesting how the tibetans in writing the scriptures they use

in writing the scriptures they use sanskrit names those are not indian

sanskrit names those are not indian names those were names those are not

names those were names those are not tibetan names those are names which were

tibetan names those are names which were used in ancient indian philosophical

used in ancient indian philosophical discourse

so devadatta says my ears like that

like that atma is the one which possesses the body

atma is the one which possesses the body my body my mind

my body my mind isn't it how the hindu dualists speak

isn't it how the hindu dualists speak but look at the chariot and its parts is

but look at the chariot and its parts is there any chariot which possesses its

there any chariot which possesses its parts

parts the chariots say this is the suv say

the chariots say this is the suv say this is my tyres and my engine and my is

this is my tyres and my engine and my is there any such suv apart from the parts

there any such suv apart from the parts which says i am the owner of this this

which says i am the owner of this this suv no

suv no i'm the owner of these parts no

i'm the owner of these parts no there is no such owner

there is no such owner in all of these

in all of these i am somebody with all these body mind i

i am somebody with all these body mind i own this body mind i am in this body

own this body mind i am in this body mind

mind we all feel this so how does chandra

we all feel this so how does chandra kitty explain this feeling

kitty explain this feeling he says it said not only him all

he says it said not only him all buddhists say it's an illusion created

buddhists say it's an illusion created by the continuity of body mind they give

by the continuity of body mind they give the example of a chakra a

the example of a chakra a flame if you whirl it around it looks

flame if you whirl it around it looks like a circle the fan which you see now

like a circle the fan which you see now it looks like a disc when it moves very

it looks like a disc when it moves very fast but it's just one point of flame

fast but it's just one point of flame moving fast similarly flashes of

moving fast similarly flashes of thoughts feelings emotions as they go

thoughts feelings emotions as they go one after another without seizing you

one after another without seizing you feel like you are a self

feel like you are a self i am the self which possesses thoughts

i am the self which possesses thoughts feelings emotions body but actually

feelings emotions body but actually there are only these thoughts feelings

there are only these thoughts feelings emotions body the changes of the body

emotions body the changes of the body that's all that there is five

that's all that there is five skandas five pillars which are

skandas five pillars which are continuously changing themselves that's

continuously changing themselves that's all that there is according to the

all that there is according to the buddhists

buddhists now

now then this is the no possessor there is

then this is the no possessor there is no self which possesses body mind you i

no self which possesses body mind you i feel it you feel it it's not real

feel it you feel it it's not real it's a it's an illusion generated by the

it's a it's an illusion generated by the body mind imagine in your dreams also

body mind imagine in your dreams also you feel i am here talking to somebody

you feel i am here talking to somebody when you wake up neither you were there

when you wake up neither you were there not that person was there so that

not that person was there so that feeling came that i am there but that

feeling came that i am there but that was an illusion like that this illusion

was an illusion like that this illusion generated by the continuously changing

generated by the continuously changing body mind

body mind then what is what more is there the

then what is what more is there the sixth option

sixth option look

look the chariot is the parts

the chariot is the parts is the combination is that there's the

is the combination is that there's the parts there the chariot that's what you

parts there the chariot that's what you call the chariot the collection of the

call the chariot the collection of the parts not literally the parts themselves

parts not literally the parts themselves that was the first option but the

that was the first option but the collection of the parts

collection of the parts that's what i mean this

that's what i mean this collection of the parts of the chariot i

collection of the parts of the chariot i atma is the collection of mind body

atma is the collection of mind body consciousness all of it together

consciousness all of it together body mind is atma this collection but if

body mind is atma this collection but if you keep the collection of the parts

you keep the collection of the parts separately

separately is that a chariot you keep a wheel here

is that a chariot you keep a wheel here and the axle there and another wheel

and the axle there and another wheel there is that a chariot no that's just a

there is that a chariot no that's just a collection of parts there is no chariot

collection of parts there is no chariot there

there similarly in the continuously changing

similarly in the continuously changing body mind

body mind body and mind

body and mind which collection are you talking about

which collection are you talking about and if you collect them like that which

and if you collect them like that which which is the

atma then the last option would be it is the configuration

the configuration the shape

the shape look

look somebody might see an exasperation

somebody might see an exasperation chandra kitty you are a great

chandra kitty you are a great philosopher you're confusing me it's a

philosopher you're confusing me it's a simple thing

simple thing arrange the parts in a particular

arrange the parts in a particular configuration in that way and that is

configuration in that way and that is chariot

chariot you think yeah that's what it is right

you think yeah that's what it is right you arrange put the parts together fit

you arrange put the parts together fit it together and that's the chariot

it together and that's the chariot but chandra kitty says my dear man don't

but chandra kitty says my dear man don't you see then that's not and like an

you see then that's not and like an eternal self which is existing apart

eternal self which is existing apart from body mind

from body mind it's a shape which emerges from the

it's a shape which emerges from the parts of the chariot if you put them

parts of the chariot if you put them together in a particular way it emerges

together in a particular way it emerges the shape emerges

the shape emerges it does not exist apart from the

it does not exist apart from the part and that shape does not exist in

part and that shape does not exist in the parts also the parts don't look like

the parts also the parts don't look like a chariot the wheel doesn't look like a

a chariot the wheel doesn't look like a chariot the axle doesn't look like a

chariot the axle doesn't look like a chariot

chariot if you put them all nearby they don't

if you put them all nearby they don't look like a chariot arranged in a

look like a chariot arranged in a particular way a particular shape

particular way a particular shape emerges

emerges that shape you label chariot and you use

that shape you label chariot and you use that chariot that the buddhist and

that chariot that the buddhist and chandra kitty does not deny

chandra kitty does not deny but where is this in the same way where

but where is this in the same way where is this eternal separate reality called

is this eternal separate reality called atma

atma if you say

if you say living body is there thinking mind is

living body is there thinking mind is there senses are working thoughts are

there senses are working thoughts are coming understanding is going on

coming understanding is going on happiness misery is going on this thing

happiness misery is going on this thing i'm labeling as self

i'm labeling as self fine

fine that's called the transactional self but

that's called the transactional self but there's no ultimate self there there's

there's no ultimate self there there's no eternal self there there is no one

no eternal self there there is no one eye who has gone from lifetime to

eye who has gone from lifetime to lifetime no

lifetime no not even from moment to moment in the

not even from moment to moment in the buddhist think of momented existence

buddhist think of momented existence this is real disappears another one

this is real disappears another one comes up there's no eternal atma

comes up there's no eternal atma persisting across

persisting across these this changes so even the shape of

these this changes so even the shape of the parts is not the chariot

the parts is not the chariot so seven options

so seven options uh all of them they if you examine them

uh all of them they if you examine them and connect them to self and body mind

and connect them to self and body mind you will find there's no way a self and

you will find there's no way a self and atman could exist in this body mind

atman could exist in this body mind could could have any relation with this

could could have any relation with this body mind no way you could understand

body mind no way you could understand this bodybind which makes sense as an

this bodybind which makes sense as an atma

atma okay

okay very quickly

very quickly we have seen what the advaithin says

we have seen what the advaithin says i'll quickly say what you know from an

i'll quickly say what you know from an advertising perspective

advertising perspective advaita has a very good answer to this

advaita has a very good answer to this advaita says first of all body mind is

advaita says first of all body mind is not the atma

not the atma the first one is body mind armor

the first one is body mind armor literally the first option is chariot is

literally the first option is chariot is the parts body mind is atma we

the parts body mind is atma we and chandra kitty shows it's not

and chandra kitty shows it's not possible and as non-dualists we

possible and as non-dualists we completely agree and all other hindu

completely agree and all other hindu schools also agree because they want to

schools also agree because they want to show atma separately

show atma separately second

second atma is separate from body mind and

atma is separate from body mind and chandra kitty shows it cannot be so

chandra kitty shows it cannot be so there is no chariot apart from the

there is no chariot apart from the parts similarly there is no atma apart

parts similarly there is no atma apart from body mind

from body mind and all the arguments that the

and all the arguments that the hindus show

hindus show the dualists show they can be faulted

the dualists show they can be faulted because you really cannot show them

because you really cannot show them separately a limited self

separately a limited self atma cannot be demonstrated apart from

atma cannot be demonstrated apart from one body mind

one body mind as

as vivekanth also says you can in logic you

vivekanth also says you can in logic you can say i am the continuous witness of

can say i am the continuous witness of all the changes show me in practice has

all the changes show me in practice has anyone this is his words has anyone been

anyone this is his words has anyone been able to show them in practice separately

able to show them in practice separately no

no here the advaitin says that we don't

here the advaitin says that we don't actually intend to say that we say that

actually intend to say that we say that we are saying that you are not the body

we are saying that you are not the body mind to demonstrate that we show that

mind to demonstrate that we show that you are the witness of the body mind but

you are the witness of the body mind but we don't want to say that there is a

we don't want to say that there is a separate witness of body mind age body

separate witness of body mind age body mind is a separate witness no that's not

mind is a separate witness no that's not the that's not advaita vedanta that's

the that's not advaita vedanta that's actually sankhya

actually sankhya we do this in order to say de haat

we do this in order to say de haat mavada in order to cut at the root of

mavada in order to cut at the root of identification with body mind

identification with body mind we have a natural tendency to cling to

we have a natural tendency to cling to the body mind and in order to show that

the body mind and in order to show that we show that you cannot be the body mind

we show that you cannot be the body mind that much only

that much only then what what do you want to say

then what what do you want to say what is the non-dualist response how do

what is the non-dualist response how do you want to establish the atman

you want to establish the atman the non-dualist response is very

the non-dualist response is very interesting and it's not covered by the

interesting and it's not covered by the seven-fold reasoning of chandra kitty

seven-fold reasoning of chandra kitty one example will make it very clear

one example will make it very clear gold and ornaments one which i which i

gold and ornaments one which i which i use

use you have bracelets you have necklaces

you have bracelets you have necklaces you have rings and they're all made of

you have rings and they're all made of gold somebody comes and tells you that

gold somebody comes and tells you that the reality is gold

the reality is gold not the reality is not actually a

not the reality is not actually a bracelet or a bracelet ring necklace

bracelet or a bracelet ring necklace there are names there are particular

there are names there are particular forms they're users bracelet looks like

forms they're users bracelet looks like this you put it on your wrist necklace

this you put it on your wrist necklace looks like this you put it on your neck

looks like this you put it on your neck ring looks like this you put it on your

ring looks like this you put it on your finger

finger so there's a names are different forms

so there's a names are different forms are different use is different but the

are different use is different but the material the reality of all of them is

material the reality of all of them is gold that's the golden

gold that's the golden ornament example which advaita favors

ornament example which advaita favors now apply to

now apply to the seven-fold reasoning you will see

the seven-fold reasoning you will see immediately what it means

immediately what it means is there

is there um

um is gold the same as the necklace

is gold the same as the necklace no point one gold is not the same as the

no point one gold is not the same as the necklace gold can be the

necklace gold can be the ring also gold can be the bracelet also

ring also gold can be the bracelet also gold can be something else

gold can be something else then second is is gold something apart

then second is is gold something apart from the ornaments

from the ornaments no

no that is the beauty of it

that is the beauty of it when you say gold is something different

when you say gold is something different from the ornaments what the advaithin

from the ornaments what the advaithin means is not that gold is another type

means is not that gold is another type of ornament

of ornament there is a it is a separate reality

there is a it is a separate reality separate reality immediately we think

separate reality immediately we think that also there is body mind atma

that also there is body mind atma advertises not like that you can never

advertises not like that you can never say necklace bracelet ring gold

say necklace bracelet ring gold you can't do that

you can't do that it's not a separate ornament

it's not a separate ornament but is it separate in a very deep sense

but is it separate in a very deep sense certainly because it is the reality

certainly because it is the reality which appears as go as necklace bracelet

which appears as go as necklace bracelet ring

ring you you the one and one limitless

you you the one and one limitless consciousness are the reality which

consciousness are the reality which appears as the waker and your waking

appears as the waker and your waking world as the dreamer and your dream

world as the dreamer and your dream world as the deep sleeper and the

world as the deep sleeper and the blankness of deep sleep

blankness of deep sleep we are not saying the waker is somebody

we are not saying the waker is somebody separate from the entire waking world

separate from the entire waking world and body mind no no no

and body mind no no no the waker and the waking world including

the waker and the waking world including body mind they appear in one awareness

body mind they appear in one awareness one limitless awareness

one limitless awareness chandra kitty says ah so you are saying

chandra kitty says ah so you are saying that the atman is the basis

that the atman is the basis the ground it contains body mind no

the ground it contains body mind no again

again it's not that gold is like a bowl in

it's not that gold is like a bowl in which a necklace has been put

which a necklace has been put it's not like that

it's not like that it's not like that swami vivekan himself

it's not like that swami vivekan himself says how advaita settles this problem

says how advaita settles this problem this is not that there is a rope in

this is not that there is a rope in which there is a snake

which there is a snake it is the rope alone which is mistaken

it is the rope alone which is mistaken to be the snake

to be the snake it is the gold alone which is taken as

it is the gold alone which is taken as the necklace its not that gold is a

the necklace its not that gold is a separate thing in which a necklace has

separate thing in which a necklace has been put

been put that option also is rejected

that option also is rejected so it's not like that

so it's not like that it doesn't fall in that category the

it doesn't fall in that category the fourth category the opposite also is

fourth category the opposite also is there

there a gold in the

a gold in the necklace in the bracelet in the ring

necklace in the bracelet in the ring like you said is a chariot in the parts

like you said is a chariot in the parts is the atma in the body mind you might

is the atma in the body mind you might say if

say if that inadvertently you might agree yes

that inadvertently you might agree yes yes there is gold in the necklace but

yes there is gold in the necklace but that's not true

that's not true it's not that there is a necklace in

it's not that there is a necklace in which some gold has been put

which some gold has been put it's not that there is a wave in which

it's not that there is a wave in which some water has been put

some water has been put it is the gold alone with a particular

it is the gold alone with a particular name form and function it's a necklace

name form and function it's a necklace another name form and function which is

another name form and function which is the bracelet it is the water alone which

the bracelet it is the water alone which appears as wave small big foam

appears as wave small big foam you know drops of water tsunami waves

you know drops of water tsunami waves all are that water only it's not that

all are that water only it's not that water is something in which

water is something in which a wave has been put or a wave is

a wave has been put or a wave is something in which water has been put so

something in which water has been put so those are the third and fourth options

those are the third and fourth options in the chariot example sevenfold

in the chariot example sevenfold reasoning

reasoning is

is atma

atma pure consciousness brahman the possessor

pure consciousness brahman the possessor of body mind again use the golden

of body mind again use the golden necklace example

necklace example is gold the possessor of a necklace

is gold the possessor of a necklace does gold go around wearing a necklace

does gold go around wearing a necklace no

no they are not two separate entities

they are not two separate entities again you see that example

again you see that example answers the question

answers the question so is the chariot just the parts the

so is the chariot just the parts the collection of the parts there's no

collection of the parts there's no chariot which is a collection of the

chariot which is a collection of the parts

parts is the atma the collection of all of

is the atma the collection of all of this together all put all of them

this together all put all of them together is called atma all the

together is called atma all the necklaces to get necklaces and

necklaces to get necklaces and bracelet and ring together is it called

bracelet and ring together is it called gold no

gold no gold can exist without you melt all of

gold can exist without you melt all of them destroy all the necklaces just melt

them destroy all the necklaces just melt them down to still be gold

them down to still be gold change them into tiaras or whatever

change them into tiaras or whatever still be gold

so gold is not a collection of the golden ornaments

golden ornaments and finally it's the shape

and finally it's the shape more so and gold is not the shape of a

more so and gold is not the shape of a necklace or a shape of a bracelet it's

necklace or a shape of a bracelet it's not a form not a particular form which

not a form not a particular form which is called

is called gold no more than a chariot is a

gold no more than a chariot is a particular

particular shape emerging out of

shape emerging out of parts

parts so the seven fold reasoning

so the seven fold reasoning it is effective

it is effective against the individual self

against the individual self which is put forth by the dualists

which is put forth by the dualists and it's difficult to answer this is one

and it's difficult to answer this is one of the most sophisticated attacks of the

of the most sophisticated attacks of the mahayana buddhists against the concept

mahayana buddhists against the concept of atma but

of atma but it

it the advaitic idea of self the philosophy

the advaitic idea of self the philosophy of self atma slips through this net i

of self atma slips through this net i say i wrote that it slips through

say i wrote that it slips through chandra kitties net

chandra kitties net what actually chandra kitty would have

what actually chandra kitty would have made of this

made of this we don't know because he never got a

we don't know because he never got a chance to engage with the non-dualists

chance to engage with the non-dualists with advaithans

with advaithans but

but one can see how amazingly similar

one can see how amazingly similar the madhyamaka buddhism of tibet of

the madhyamaka buddhism of tibet of indo-indo-tibetan buddhism and advaita

indo-indo-tibetan buddhism and advaita vedanta very similar often using same

vedanta very similar often using same language it's like they're not exactly

language it's like they're not exactly the same but they use like mirror images

one states the same truth uh negatively the other one the dwaythens try to state

the other one the dwaythens try to state the same truth positively

the same truth positively the danger of each is this if you try to

the danger of each is this if you try to state it negatively the danger is that

state it negatively the danger is that you will be taken for a nihilist that

you will be taken for a nihilist that you are ultimately saying nothing exists

you are ultimately saying nothing exists it's unfair because nagarjuna himself

it's unfair because nagarjuna himself has said we are not asadwa instead we

has said we are not asadwa instead we are not saying that nothing exists

are not saying that nothing exists those who misunderstand emptiness in

those who misunderstand emptiness in this way he says

this way he says this is a

as a serpent falsely held if you hold a serpent in the wrong end you're going to

serpent in the wrong end you're going to get bitten

get bitten if you misunderstand emptiness is

if you misunderstand emptiness is nothing you're going to get bitten

nothing you're going to get bitten you will not attain liberation on

you will not attain liberation on nirvana

the problem of misunderstanding emptiness is that you end up with

emptiness is that you end up with nihilism nothing the problem of

nihilism nothing the problem of misunderstanding advaita nondual vedanta

misunderstanding advaita nondual vedanta is that you end up with something

is that you end up with something you think that brahman is a thing atman

you think that brahman is a thing atman is a thing it's not a thing

is a thing it's not a thing it's more real there's nothing no it's

it's more real there's nothing no it's not nothing either

not nothing either it's more real than nothing and more

it's more real than nothing and more real than things also

real than things also so i always put it this way it is no

so i always put it this way it is no thing

thing no thing and this is something

no thing and this is something acceptable to both sides if you say

acceptable to both sides if you say brahman is nothing what do i mean by

brahman is nothing what do i mean by that it's not an object

that it's not an object to them if you say it's nothing then

to them if you say it's nothing then they will understand that it's now

they will understand that it's now you're not talking about an eternal

you're not talking about an eternal reality you're not talking about

reality you're not talking about nothing you are not talking about

nothing you are not talking about interdependent existence of the the uh

interdependent existence of the the uh transactional reality what nagarjuna

transactional reality what nagarjuna called samriti

called samriti so

so it will be acceptable to both

it will be acceptable to both swami saradananda

swami saradananda in his biography of sri rama krishna

in his biography of sri rama krishna ramakrishna the great master he says

ramakrishna the great master he says what the buddhists call emptiness we

what the buddhists call emptiness we call fullness he says what they call

call fullness he says what they call shunyam we call it pundam

would the buddhists agree one book was remarkable book was

one book was remarkable book was suggested by buddhist scholar and

suggested by buddhist scholar and practitioner recently which i got

practitioner recently which i got progressive stages of meditation on

progressive stages of meditation on emptiness progressive stages of

emptiness progressive stages of meditation on emptiness

meditation on emptiness by a modern tibetan lama who has written

by a modern tibetan lama who has written this he just tiny book he sums up the

this he just tiny book he sums up the entire range of buddhist teaching in

entire range of buddhist teaching in five stages

five stages of understanding deeper and deeper

of understanding deeper and deeper understandings of emptiness

understandings of emptiness first understanding is the theravada

first understanding is the theravada understanding that there is a mass of

understanding that there is a mass of change outside there's a massive change

change outside there's a massive change in the body and the mind here there is

in the body and the mind here there is no self that is the emptiness of the

no self that is the emptiness of the self first stage of understanding then

self first stage of understanding then he teaches how you meditate on that what

he teaches how you meditate on that what are the benefits of that second stage of

are the benefits of that second stage of understanding the mind only school yoga

understanding the mind only school yoga chara vigna mother who says

chara vigna mother who says no no there is no mass of change outside

no no there is no mass of change outside it's all in the mind mind is a series of

it's all in the mind mind is a series of changes and in that appears a changing

changes and in that appears a changing external world there is really no

external world there is really no external world at all it's all in the

external world at all it's all in the mind it's a series of changes and that's

mind it's a series of changes and that's that's the and creates an illusion of a

that's the and creates an illusion of a continuous self

continuous self mind only school chitta matra mind only

mind only school chitta matra mind only or vignavada

or vignavada and these are different names yogacara

and these are different names yogacara vignava the very ancient school going

vignava the very ancient school going back nearly to asubandhu

back nearly to asubandhu 1600 1700 years

1600 1700 years that's the second stage of emptiness

that's the second stage of emptiness there's no world also it's an appearance

there's no world also it's an appearance in the mind third stage of emptiness

in the mind third stage of emptiness there's no mind also

there's no mind also that is the madhyamaka school

that is the madhyamaka school the emptiness school world is empty mind

the emptiness school world is empty mind is empty how do you understand that

is empty how do you understand that remember the two sheaves of hay leaning

remember the two sheaves of hay leaning on each other remove one the other one

on each other remove one the other one also will fall

also will fall then what's real

then what's real won't say

won't say keep quiet

keep quiet if you say it you're wrong

if you say it you're wrong like nagarjuna said if you say something

like nagarjuna said if you say something and cut it down remember the fourfold

and cut it down remember the fourfold logic

logic will you say you will say either it is

will you say you will say either it is wrong

wrong it's not wrong it is and is not wrong

it's not wrong it is and is not wrong neither is nor is not wrong

neither is nor is not wrong so all those things he will prove wrong

so all those things he will prove wrong so the

so the emptiness school says

emptiness school says neither there is a the

neither there is a the real world a mind which imagines a world

real world a mind which imagines a world not as an external world emptiness of

not as an external world emptiness of world and

world and um

um the emptiness of the self of the mind

the emptiness of the self of the mind and then among them

and then among them the

the madhyamaka emptiness school there are

madhyamaka emptiness school there are two varieties and these varieties

two varieties and these varieties developed in tibet actually they say

developed in tibet actually they say that it was in india but they generally

that it was in india but they generally developed it in tibet one is called

developed it in tibet one is called swatantrika another

the independent argument school and the consequentialist school

consequentialist school i will not go into that it's a huge huge

i will not go into that it's a huge huge debate the books and books have been

debate the books and books have been written on it and the tibetans spent

written on it and the tibetans spent some 500 years fighting over it

some 500 years fighting over it so it's it's a huge subject

so it's it's a huge subject but basically

but basically the first school says emptiness of the

the first school says emptiness of the world emptiness of the self

world emptiness of the self the last one the prasangi kamadhimaka

the last one the prasangi kamadhimaka fourth school of emptiness they say

fourth school of emptiness they say that

that emptiness of emptiness emptiness is also

emptiness of emptiness emptiness is also empty

empty don't take shunyata as in reality i'm

don't take shunyata as in reality i'm just saying this one thing but it's it's

just saying this one thing but it's it's too complex to say

too complex to say but that prasangi kamadhimaka is the

but that prasangi kamadhimaka is the final school of buddhist tibetan start

final school of buddhist tibetan start which is prevalent now that's what if

which is prevalent now that's what if you go to learn buddhist philosophy from

you go to learn buddhist philosophy from the

the dalai lama and his teachers and the

dalai lama and his teachers and the teachers there they will teach you

teachers there they will teach you prasang madhyamaka

prasang madhyamaka in fact in tibet

in fact in tibet one way of cutting you down is to accuse

one way of cutting you down is to accuse you of being a swatantrika dhammaka

you of being a swatantrika dhammaka independent argument

independent argument middle path emptiness school

all right so what what remains the last stage

so what what remains the last stage fifth one

fifth one what this

what this lama calls maha madhyamaka the great

lama calls maha madhyamaka the great middle path

middle path it's called the shentong it's something

it's called the shentong it's something that was suppressed the books were

that was suppressed the books were burned the monasteries were destroyed

burned the monasteries were destroyed and converted into the consequentialist

and converted into the consequentialist school

school so there's some history behind it but

so there's some history behind it but whatever survives if you look at it what

whatever survives if you look at it what do they say

do they say yes everything is empty fine emptiness

yes everything is empty fine emptiness of emptiness also

of emptiness also but then where is it all happening what

but then where is it all happening what is the truth of all of that he says

is the truth of all of that he says there is this they say

there is this they say basic space of awareness in which

basic space of awareness in which everything arises like dreams like

everything arises like dreams like constructions and fabrications

constructions and fabrications like clouds

like clouds gathering together in a vast blue sky in

gathering together in a vast blue sky in this we use these terms

this we use these terms in the clear light of the void

in the clear light of the void all of samsara and nirvana are arising

all of samsara and nirvana are arising and falling together you go from samsara

and falling together you go from samsara to nirvana by practicing all this and

to nirvana by practicing all this and then you realize both are appearances

then you realize both are appearances even nirvana is not real

even nirvana is not real reality is this vast unlimited basic

reality is this vast unlimited basic space of awareness which is literally

space of awareness which is literally the translation of the advaithic

the translation of the advaithic this literally a very beautiful term the

this literally a very beautiful term the sky of consciousness

sky of consciousness sky of awareness

sky of awareness so

so literally atman or brahman

literally atman or brahman so at that stage the final development

so at that stage the final development the maha mudra and this is something the

the maha mudra and this is something the consequentialist madhyamaka the prasangi

consequentialist madhyamaka the prasangi kamadhyamaka will not admit they will

kamadhyamaka will not admit they will say our development is the last and what

say our development is the last and what i studied at harvard suggested that our

i studied at harvard suggested that our development is the last but the llama

development is the last but the llama outside harvard said it's the same

outside harvard said it's the same and what he meant was this last final

and what he meant was this last final stage this last final stage literally

stage this last final stage literally the two come together the advaita

the two come together the advaita vedanta the final development of advaita

vedanta the final development of advaita vedanta and the final development of

vedanta and the final development of tibetan buddhism they come together in

tibetan buddhism they come together in this non-dualist

this non-dualist they will call it emptiness we call it

they will call it emptiness we call it fullness

fullness they call it pure awareness we call it

they call it pure awareness we call it pure

pure awareness and they said that is the very

awareness and they said that is the very nature they call it the buddha nature we

nature they call it the buddha nature we call it brahman

and that is that buddha nature there it's there for everybody all the time in

it's there for everybody all the time in fact everybody is an appearance in that

fact everybody is an appearance in that that's the only thing that there really

that's the only thing that there really is

is but only thing that really is you can

but only thing that really is you can imagine chandra kitty sankhap and all an

imagine chandra kitty sankhap and all an alarm

alarm thing

thing is no no no you can't say such things

i will end with srirama krishna will give the last word

srirama krishna will give the last word to sri ramakrishna in the collection of

to sri ramakrishna in the collection of sayings of sri ramakrishna the first

sayings of sri ramakrishna the first saying collected by swami brahmananda

saying collected by swami brahmananda sudama krishna devotee

sudama krishna devotee hindu of hindus devotee of kali

hindu of hindus devotee of kali his choicest sayings and in that number

his choicest sayings and in that number one he says

one he says when you know yourself you know god

when you know yourself you know god all right that's still pretty hindu the

all right that's still pretty hindu the next that's advaithic the next he says

next that's advaithic the next he says what do you mean knowing yourself

what do you mean knowing yourself inquire into yourself

inquire into yourself where is this i in this body-mind he

where is this i in this body-mind he says is it the hands is it the flesh is

says is it the hands is it the flesh is it the blood the bones as you inquire

it the blood the bones as you inquire into the body and into the mind he says

into the body and into the mind he says i'm quoting from him

i'm quoting from him you will find there is nothing

you will find there is nothing corresponding to the eye

corresponding to the eye he says it's empty

he says it's empty this is tibetan buddhist not even

this is tibetan buddhist not even nagarjuna's language this is the

nagarjuna's language this is the language of chandra kirti of songkhapa

language of chandra kirti of songkhapa and

it is empty he says it's like peeling an onion

he says it's like peeling an onion you peel it and peel it and you think

you peel it and peel it and you think you'll come to an essence

you'll come to an essence that would be the hindu thinking you

that would be the hindu thinking you peel of physical

peel of physical vital mental intellectual and the causal

vital mental intellectual and the causal body you come to atma no no no

body you come to atma no no no he says you keep peeling you find

he says you keep peeling you find nothing

and if he stops at that point he would be

if he stops at that point he would be perfectly acceptable as the next song

perfectly acceptable as the next song but then he adds one more thing he says

but then he adds one more thing he says what remains

what remains is consciousness atma

is consciousness atma that's where it comes together again

that's where it comes together again somebody in the presence of sri

somebody in the presence of sri ramakrishna said buddha

ramakrishna said buddha was and

was and literally the word is nastic atheist who

literally the word is nastic atheist who did not accept the ultimate reality

did not accept the ultimate reality and suramar krishna said in bengali

and suramar krishna said in bengali nasty kana java go mukebal te

nasty kana java go mukebal te why should he be an atheist

why should he be an atheist atheist is too narrow a term who does

atheist is too narrow a term who does not accept that there is an ultimate

not accept that there is an ultimate reality nasty literally means one who

reality nasty literally means one who doesn't accept the vedas and that is

doesn't accept the vedas and that is true buddha did deny at least the

true buddha did deny at least the ritualistic portion of the vedas but

ritualistic portion of the vedas but suramar krishna says why should he be a

suramar krishna says why should he be a nastic why should he be an atheist

he could not express what he found in language

language and then he says something which is

and then he says something which is startling

that means where it is between

it is between [Music]

is not and is between eternalism and between nihilism the middle path between

between nihilism the middle path between that that is precisely it

that that is precisely it today after listening to

today after listening to the tibetan llamas and professor

the tibetan llamas and professor garfield and reading enormous amounts of

garfield and reading enormous amounts of handouts i can say the same thing

handouts i can say the same thing how did sriram krishna say this because

how did sriram krishna say this because of all the things he was exposed to he

of all the things he was exposed to he was never exposed to tibetan buddhism

was never exposed to tibetan buddhism if he had said it is beyond existence

if he had said it is beyond existence and non-existence beyond that's a very

and non-existence beyond that's a very hindu language gita says this

brahman is not that something which is manifest or something which is

manifest or something which is unmanifest

unmanifest beyond the manifest and unmanifest is

beyond the manifest and unmanifest is brahman krishna says this to arjuna and

brahman krishna says this to arjuna and the gita but between that language of

the gita but between that language of between eternalism and

between eternalism and nihilism between asti and nasty that

nihilism between asti and nasty that between language is peculiarly

between language is peculiarly buddhist and that also peculiarly

buddhist and that also peculiarly tibetan buddhist

so yes um

yes um so at that point

so at that point we will leave it

we will leave it and i think

and i think yeah so this is sort of in in some of

yeah so this is sort of in in some of what about we

what about we studied and what i went through and what

studied and what i went through and what i feel is

i feel is my conclusion

my conclusion and i think

and i think we can't look to the ancients for a

we can't look to the ancients for a conclusion because shankara and chandra

conclusion because shankara and chandra kirti did not meet

kirti did not meet and sankhapa did not meet maduzu and

and sankhapa did not meet maduzu and saraswati and others it's we have to do

saraswati and others it's we have to do that groundwork a few traditional

that groundwork a few traditional um

um advaitans would agree with this

advaitans would agree with this many would not

many would not many tibetan llamas would not agree with

many tibetan llamas would not agree with it but if you ask tibetan llamas of

it but if you ask tibetan llamas of their view of advaita vedanta i mean

their view of advaita vedanta i mean that lama said it's the same but

that lama said it's the same but scholarly view they would say no it's a

scholarly view they would say no it's a kind of eternalism they say there is

kind of eternalism they say there is something called atma brahman separate

something called atma brahman separate from everything which exist but if you

from everything which exist but if you look deeply that's not what we are

look deeply that's not what we are saying

saying this reality the very nature of this

this reality the very nature of this reality is brahman

reality is brahman they will say samsara nirvana are the

they will say samsara nirvana are the same finally we also agree

same finally we also agree god apartheid says

god apartheid says there is no cessation no origination

there is no cessation no origination no bondage no liberation no one

no bondage no liberation no one making an effort for liberation and no

making an effort for liberation and no one who is liberated this is the final

one who is liberated this is the final truth nagarjuna would give 100 marks to

truth nagarjuna would give 100 marks to that they would shake hands

and others so that they may bless us with that vision with that

with that vision with that intuitive insight which liberates us

intuitive insight which liberates us from suffering from samsara which

from suffering from samsara which liberates us from samsara into nirvana

liberates us from samsara into nirvana and from which perspective we see we can

and from which perspective we see we can see that both samsara and nirvana are

see that both samsara and nirvana are appearances in the reality that

appearances in the reality that we are our own inner reality

we are our own inner reality good

[Music] you

Nhấn vào bất kỳ đoạn văn bản hoặc mốc thời gian nào để nhảy đến phần đó trong video

Chia sẻ:

Hầu hết transcript sẵn sàng trong dưới 5 giây

Sao Chép 1 Chạm125+ Ngôn ngữTìm kiếm nội dungNhảy đến mốc thời gian

Dán URL YouTube

Nhập link bất kỳ video YouTube để lấy toàn bộ transcript

Hầu hết transcript sẵn sàng trong dưới 5 giây

Cài Tiện Ích Chrome Của Chúng Tôi

Lấy transcript ngay mà không cần rời khỏi YouTube. Cài tiện ích Chrome để truy cập transcript của bất kỳ video nào ngay trên trang xem, chỉ với một cú nhấp.

Thêm vào Chrome — Miễn phí

Hỗ trợ YouTube, Coursera, Udemy và nhiều nền tảng học tập khác

Lấy Transcript Ngay: Chỉ Cần Sửa Tên Miền Trên Thanh Địa Chỉ!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

Transcript YouTubeĐang chuẩn bị kết quả…

Transcript YouTube:Vedantic Self and Buddhist Non-Self | Swami Sarvapriyananda

AutoDub

Transcript Video

Summary

Core Theme

Dán URL YouTube

Form Trích Xuất Transcript

Cài Tiện Ích Chrome Của Chúng Tôi

Lấy Transcript Ngay: Chỉ Cần Sửa Tên Miền Trên Thanh Địa Chỉ!

Transcript YouTube:
Vedantic Self and Buddhist Non-Self | Swami Sarvapriyananda