This content explores the concept of Brahman as the ultimate cause of the universe, detailing the process of creation and the different philosophical perspectives on reality within Advaita Vedanta, ultimately aiming to guide individuals towards enlightenment.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
I'll read the translation from Swami Gambhirananda.
From him who is omniscient in general,
and all knowing in detail,
and whose austerity is constituted by knowledge
evolves this Brahman,
derivative Brahman,
name, color and food.
So what is being said here,
sarvagya, sarvavid,
Two words have been used here.
Sarvagya means all knowing.
Sarvavid means all knowing.
But they have two different meanings.
The sarvagya and sarvavid.
I'll give you a simple clear answer first.
What does it mean?
Why is the same thing said twice?
They are in two different senses.
Sarvagya means knowing the cause.
Sarvavid means knowing the effects individually.
Sarvagya means you know gold,
Sarvagya means all knowing.
So all knowing in the sense of knowing the gold.
Sarvavid means all knowing in the sense of knowing the ornaments in detail.
Suppose you know it's all gold.
But you go to the jewelry shop and you read the catalog.
Or somebody gave a box of chocolates.
Chocolates you just eat,
but then nowadays there are fancy things,
you know, like we open the box,
Even to eat the chocolates you have to read.
And there is a list of different chocolates,
and they all have different names,
And there are of course different ingredients.
But basically if you know it's a box of chocolates,
so even without reading you know one thing,
they are all chocolate.
But when you read you know,
You come to know;
Oh they have all these fancy names,
And they have different shapes,
and different taste and so on and so forth.
So the first one is Sarvagya.
All-knowing in the sense of knowing the cause,
the material,
the reality itself.
And the second one is Sarvavid,
knowing everything in detail.
It's an approximate example.
The first one is realizing you are Brahman.
Aham Brahma asmi.
And you realize that.
The enlightened one is Sarvagya in that sense.
But to know everything in detail
you have to be the cosmic mind-
Hiranyagarbha,
or Ishwar or Bhagavan.
God knows everything in detail.
So it's like you know the entire library.
You read up everything about everything,
you know every subject.
And whatever has been written you read it up
then you are knower of everything in detail.
So these are the two meanings of the word omniscient.
The first one,
the enlightened one,
you, I, we will all be omniscient when we are enlightened.
In that sense that, we know everything is Brahman.
But the detailed knowledge of everything,
of every being, that only God has
or avatars, incarnations have.
In the Bhagavad Gita,
Arjuna asks this question;
You were born recently just like me.
Krishna says no,
we have had many many lives before.
You and I and all these kings.
I know them all.
You have forgotten everything Arjuna.
So, I know,
I know them all,
that means Krishna knows all,
all his past incarnations.
And he knows in detail all of Arjuna's past lives,
whatever has happened to him.
And this present life,
and whatever is going to happen to him in this life.
And all his future,
if there are any future lives at all.
So Ishwara knows everything about us in detail.
We know only one thing,
if you become enlightened.
Don't become enlightened then you don't know anything.
But if you become enlightened,
then you know one thing,
one thing in reality
that everything is Brahman,
I am Brahman.
And I am that Brahman.
And that's the saving knowledge
that's the real knowledge.
So in Vedantic text.
Ishwara is called Sarvagya
All-knowing.
And we are called Alpagya,
little-knowing.
So our knowledge is very frail.
We struggle to get a little bit of knowledge
from kindergarten to PhD. And that after struggling
we promptly forget most of it.
And later in old age,
we sort of forget all of it.
So that's the state of our knowledge,
terrible.
But God knows everything in detail.
Sri Ramakrishna, asks M; Tell me,
tell me in truth;
that I know everything about you,
your past, present and future.
And M's actually suddenly overcome
and he holds his hands,
and he bows down,
and he says,
It is true.
You know my past, present and future.
Now what is that knowing the past, present and future?
That is Ishwara or Bhagavan,
knowing everything in detail.
Then,
Gyanamayam Tapa.
So a little more explanation is given
for the word austerity
which was used in the earlier mantra.
Brahman undergoing austerity
to produce Tapasya
to produce the universe.
What does it mean?
Gyanamayam.
It's austerity
of the nature of knowledge.
Brahman has the knowledge.
It reflects on its past knowledge.
Of how...
Alright,
it's time to create a universe.
So how do I do that?
Well,
you pull up all those old files
from your hard drive.
And you can;
What did I do in the past universe?
So that's the austerity of Brahman.
It's of the form of knowledge.
From this Brahman,
What happens?
From this Brahman,
the other Brahman is born.
What is the other Brahman?
Hiranyagarbha.
That means from Saguna Brahman
Hiranyagarbha is born.
That's what was said earlier.
And from that
what happens?
Names and forms,
Nama Roopa.
The entire universe of names and forms
is formed.
Basically,
the jeweler,
he puts into
action,
he has designed...
he has made designs for lots of ornaments,
now he pulls out the gold
and puts those names and forms on the...
this one is shaped like this,
it's called a bracelet.
That one is shaped like that,
it's called a necklace,
And so on.
This universe is produced.
Annam.
Here the word annam means actually consumable.
All names and sights
and the forms...
and the smells and tastes.
Everything that we can refer to by language,
and even down to the actual literal meaning of the word.
The food that living beings dwell on,
which gives them energy
to carry on the activities of life.
All of that is produced.
All right.
So this ends the first chapter
which is very dense,
lot of things have been said.
Now things will be expanded
over the next few chapters.
Let's see what
reactions and questions we have here.
Ekajiva vada dristi-srishti vada
Step one.
As a concession to a daily experience and requiring one of the.
None. Endorsed by.
From direct realization by Ramana Bhagwan,
as well as Gaudapada.
Why not accept this definitive cosmology
instead of going down the rabbit path of theories?
All right.
So what he's asking here is a very profound and deep question.
It's that, you said,
Universe is created in a sequence;
That's a theory, right?
It's a cosmological theory.
And you yourself admitted,
just a story. You ask...
you're asking for a cause.
You're asking for how all this happened.
The real answer is, it didn't happen.
But if you want an answer...
It's like you're running from a lion.
I give this example;
Sometimes in a dream, you don't
know it's a dream and you're running and running.
And then a wise man turns up
and you say, save me.
And the wise man says, just wake up,
nothing's happened.
And you say; No, that's terrible.
Can't you see the lion?
Then what will the wise man do?
The wise man will tell you,
all right, climb a tree.
He shows you the tree and you climb the tree.
And then you have a question;
Where did the lion come from?
You can see the wise man rolling his eyes.
The lion came from its lion dad and lioness mom.
Where did they come from?
Well, they came from their lion dad and their lioness mom.
From grandfather lion and grandma lion.
None of it is true.
The real answer is to wake up.
But you need these.
Just yesterday in a class, somebody was asking,
why not give them the direct truth
from the Buddhist perspective? Why go down these theories?
So the answer is; this is the way of giving them the direct truth.
After all, what is all this?
What's all this going on?
Whether it's Upanishads or whatever, you are trying to lead people
The masters are trying to lead us to enlightenment.
Now, for many of us, if you directly tell me; look,
just wake up, you're Brahman.
Forget all this samsara.
Just give it up,
it's all nonsense anyway.
That's too much.
I can't swallow that.
I will not listen to you.
I'll think you are crazy.
Give up all this entire world?
Well, I won't give it up.
I'll give you up,
but I won't give up this world.
Then you need to show me that there is an ultimate reality.
All right, there's an ultimate reality which has to be realized.
Fine.
But what about this world?
This is real.
You're saying some ultimate reality,
this is real for me.
Well, then you have to show me how this reality
has come from that reality.
And for that, stories are necessary.
Or theories are necessary.
Cosmological theories.
So that's why you have to.
And the aim is still the same, to lead people to enlightenment.
Very few people can digest very strong, you know, like strong coffee
or something like that.
You know, it can upset the tummies of most people.
So you need... Sri Ramakrishna said, the mother cooks
various kinds of dishes for the children.
She knows which child has a sensitive stomach, which child
doesn't like spices, which child likes spicy food.
And she makes this out of the same fish.
She makes five varieties for the five children.
So here, what he has asked is, in Advaita Vedanta, there are
these three approaches to the universe.
I have to explain what is this universe, right?
Three approaches.
One is called Srishti Drishti Vada.
Third one is called Ajata Vada.
If I literally translate, the first one means creation and then seeing.
That's the theory.
The second one is seeing and then creation, or seeing is creation.
Third one is nothing happened theory, the theory of no birth,
Ajata, no birth, no creation.
What do they mean?
The first one says that, yes, there was this one reality,
but from that, by a process, which I will explain,
this entire universe has come.
Oh, do explain the process.
Well, then comes in all these ancient cosmologies
from the creation stories, you know, in the scriptures of the world,
to the more philosophical approaches you find, multiple approaches,
which you find in the different Upanishads.
Basically, a causal state, then a subtle state,
and then a physical state.
Science does the same thing, cosmology
on much more empirical grounds, much more rational grounds, using data
and mathematics and all of that, to argue your way back to that there's
a possibility of a Big Bang at the beginning of everything.
And then what happened?
The whole sequence.
So sequential creation.
Universe was created, and now you are here and seeing the universe.
Creation first, then seeing.
Srishti-Drishti, Srishti creation, projection.
And then seeing, Drishti to see.
So now, universe was there, and now we are seeing this universe.
We are born into this world, and we are experiencing this universe.
You can see this is a very common sense way of looking at it.
That's how we feel.
We feel this.
And almost all the Upanishads texts, they all take this position, but not all.
Some are more radical.
The more radical view is Drishti-Srishti.
Drishti-Srishti is the second one.
Seeing first, and then creation.
Not that the universe was created.
You are seeing it,
that's what creates the universe.
You, the conscious being, you see first
and then the universe is created.
That seeing itself constitutes the creation of the universe.
What does that mean?
One very good way of understanding is dreaming and waking.
In the waking world, what do we all feel?
All of us,
whatever our theory is,
What do we actually feel?
We feel the world existed, and I have come into this world.
I am looking around.
I am sort of passing my time in this world,
having all kinds of experiences.
But the world existed.
I didn't exist,
I was born into it.
And very soon I won't exist, but the world will continue to exist.
This is called Srishti-Drishti Vada.
Universe was created, then we have all come into it,
and we are experiencing it.
Theory one, common sense theory.
But in our dreams, what do we feel?
When you wake up from a dream, what did you feel?
The places you went to, the people you met, the good
and bad things which happened.
You realize, oh, I actually didn't go to... those places don't exist outside my mind.
Those people don't exist outside my mind.
Those events did not happen outside my mind.
It was all the dreaming mind.
The dream itself was the universe.
Dreaming created that universe.
It's not that the universe was there
and I went and saw it.
It was dreaming itself that generated the universe,
like a virtual universe.
So, that equivalent is Drishti-Srishti Vada.
That's in a dream.
Advaita claims in the waking world also exactly the same thing is happening.
This world you are seeing around, it doesn't exist.
You are seeing, that's why it exists.
Stop seeing, it won't exist.
And the proof of it is, as long as you are there as the seer
and experiencer, in the waking, in the dreaming, there is samsara.
The moment you, the ego, the individual being, goes to sleep
in deep sleep, samsara also disappears.
You, the experiencer, and your experienced world,
they arise together and they fall together.
When do they arise?
Dreaming, waking.
When do they disappear?
Deep sleep.
But all three are appearing before you, the reality, pure consciousness.
So, that's the Drishti-Srishti example.
The Drishti-Srishti has some consequences which you must be ready to bear.
Which means, in this waking state also, you'll have to regard this universe
as a dream, as an appearance.
Just like you regard your dreams.
You are not bothered by your dreams.
You should be ready to be not bothered by this waking universe also.
Also, the big metaphysical consequence, an epistemological consequence
of this theory is that you are the only being then.
We are all appearing in your dream.
Just as in your dream, who is really there?
You are there, nobody else.
Although the whole universe seems to be there.
So, this leads to a kind of, in philosophy,
what is called, a kind of solipsism.
One knower, you are the knower.
Eka Jiva Vada.
There is one sentient being, you, in ignorance.
And when you realize that you are Brahman, there is
no more sentient being, you are Brahman.
That's it.
This is called Drishti-Srishti Vada.
And some, like Prakashananda and some later Advaitins,
they held on to this belief,
this way of looking at the world.
It's easier if you are an all-renouncing monk.
You know, just imagine, you have simply cut yourself
away from everybody.
You live in a forest or a mountain cave, and you hardly see a human face.
It's all rocks and wind and ice.
I'm literally, I'm talking from personal experience.
Not a mountain cave, but I lived in a mountain hut
for days and days on end.
So, I just stayed for a few months, couple of months at one time.
But I was imagining, if somebody... I've seen monks like that
who stayed for 30 years, 40 years.
Now, the world very soon becomes dreamlike.
The world in the plains, which I was there, in the big cities
of India, soon become dreamlike, like some faded memory.
And you are living in this extraordinary place,
so it helps you to dismiss the world as an appearance.
That solid feel of the world begins to fade away.
And you have no connection with anybody in the world.
So, you have to be that kind of an extremely, you know,
of what is called a high degree of vairagya.
In the Himalayas, they say, Bahut Phakkad Mahatma Hai.
That means a person of tremendous renunciation.
Vivekananda, I'll just read out to you.
I was just remembering, but sometimes Vivekananda is in that mood,
extreme renunciation.
It says here, this is the lecture called The Free Soul.
And there, in volume three of the complete books of Vivekananda,
in The Free Soul, he says, he says here; Deny that there is any life at all,
because life is only another name for death.
What a... I mean, to many people it will be a horrifying statement.
Everything that we hold to be real, worthwhile,
he's just dismissing at one sweep.
Deny that there is any life at all, because life is
only another name for death.
Deny that you are a living being.
Who cares for life?
Life is one of those hallucinations and death is its counterpart.
Be careful, it is not recommending suicide.
One who commits suicide is deeply mired in ignorance.
Because what is the logic behind suicide?
If I destroy this body, I won't exist anymore.
That means I am very solidly convinced
I am this body, not even a mind.
I'm just this body.
If I destroy this body, I won't exist anymore.
So suicide is absolutely not being talked about here.
Life is one of these hallucinations and death is its counterpart.
He said life and death both are hallucinations.
Joy is one part of these hallucinations and misery the other part and so on.
What have you to do with life or death?
And we just say; what does he mean?
We think all that we have to do is life and death.
We are concerned with life and holding on to life like anything
and we are terrified of death.
That's everything life's all about...
That's the best description of all living beings,
including all human beings.
He said, what do you have to do with life or death?
These are all creations of the mind.
And he says, this is called giving up of desires of enjoyment,
either in this life or the next.
You can see. If you have that kind of renunciation, then this next one is,
this Drishti-Srishti Vada is for you.
This one more, though I'm saying it's a post Shankara development, it is
a radical form of Advaita. Generally in the Upanishads,
you will find Srishti-Drishti Vada, the more conventional approach,
like you found just here, what we read just now.
It talks about it like a real sequence of things happening one after another.
And we as individuals appearing at some point in time.
And life and death being very important.
Life is where you work out your enlightenment.
Death is the problem you're trying to solve,
attain immortality.
The Drishti-Srishti Vada completely dismisses all of that.
It's just a dream.
It's foolishness.
It's hallucination.
Step out, stop it immediately.
It's like you're being chased by the lion and the wise man comes
and says, wake up from this.
No, if I stop running the lion will eat me.
Let him eat you.
Nothing will happen.
Just see.
Like that.
They literally mean that.
And there are people who practice this.
But it is difficult.
It's easy to talk about.
It's a cool theory.
But if you try to do it, it's very difficult.
And it's not recommended for people in the world.
It's recommended only for, if you have that kind of a mindset,
only for extreme renunciants.
And there's one more beyond this,
this is called Ajata Vada.
Not even a dream.
Not even that the world is appearing to you in a dream.
The way to understand it is deep sleep.
So the way to understand Srishti-Drishti Vada is our waking state.
The way to understand Drishti-Srishti Vada is the dream state.
And the way to understand Ajata Vada is our deep sleep state.
In the deep sleep state; We talk about world or dream or whatever,
nothing is there.
No world, no dream, nothing.
Brahman alone exists.
And you are that Brahman.
So that's even more extreme.
And then some Upanishads, like the Mandukya Upanishad famously,
it supports the Ajata Vada or at least the Drishti-Srishti Vada.
I must mention, though I'm saying that it is a radical, these are
very radical theories, very rare and very, mostly not supported by the Upanishads,
but however, someone, one of the greatest Advaitins,
Madhusudana Saraswati, in his commentary on Shankaracharya's Dasha-Shloki,
the famous commentary called Siddhanta Vindu,
which is the Advaita teachings in a drop.
It's not a drop,
it's a big commentary.
But anyway, there he says, Drishti-Srishti Vada
mukhya siddhanta eva.
The real teaching of Advaita Vedanta is Drishti-Srishti Vada, is that second one,
to consider the universe as a dream,
what Vivekananda just said here.
Oh, one more thing.
By any of these means, this is the answer to what the question which Sriram asked,
by any one of these means, you can attain realization.
By, you know, an extraordinary cool theory,
Drishti-Srishti Vada, Ajata Vada, you don't get a better, improved Brahman,
Brahman plus, because I went, took the more difficult road.
No, you don't.
It is the same Brahman you reach.
If you reach it by Srishti-Drishti Vada, if you reach it
through simple dualistic devotion also, it's
it's the same reality which you are touching.
It's the same elephant which you are touching.
So that's the beauty of it.
Then one might say, then why take up these extreme positions?
One is, if you are willing to cultivate that very high level of Vairagya,
detachment, these positions will make your path
to enlightenment dramatically shorter.
It's just one step away then.
All right.
Sandhya; how can Brahman be limited by its own potential?
Because it's not limited really, and it's not even a potential really.
Potential is when something is less, and it's a potential you manifest it,
it's become bigger or greater, final.
I mean, I have a lot of potential, and if I work hard at it,
then I can become more learned, more artistic, more musical,
better orator, more rich, whatever.
Those are my potentials.
So I clearly have become better.
I manifested my potential.
Brahman is not like that.
Even when this entire universe is manifested,
so-called Brahman's potential is this vast universe,
Brahman is exactly the same.
Not one more thing has happened.
If you have a movie screen, and on that movie screen you play
the best movie, the Oscar-winning movie, has the movie screen
become a little better by that?
No.
If you play the worst movie, nobody wants to see it,
has the movie screen deteriorated by the playing of that awful movie?
No.
So what is meant by limitation?
Limitation just means apparent association with Maya from our perspective.
It veils the real nature of Brahman. In that sense.
The more greater danger is to think that association with Maya
and the production of the subtle universe, production of the physical universe,
gross universe, all of it is... somehow Brahman is expanding,
becoming bigger and bigger and better and better.
Not at all.
It's exactly the same Brahman.
Patrick says; What explains the huge difference
between enlightened person and a sincere seeker who
is convinced there's only Brahman?
So the sincere seeker is still struggling, doesn't know it yet.
We are still looking.
An enlightened person has found it and then feels, it becomes a living reality
for that person; That I am Brahman. And then they can behave accordingly.
So that behaving accordingly shows. That's what makes for the enormous difference,
which Patrick is talking about.
Jivan Mukta and the Sadhaka.
Sadhaka is improving himself or herself, trying to become a better,
less selfish person, more devoted to God, deeper meditation,
and trying to understand and live as if, that I am Brahman.
It's all a struggle because the deep feeling
is, I'm still this limited being.
But for the enlightened person, that feeling itself is gone forever.
The enlightened being clearly sees without the slightest effort, slightest doubt,
slightest hesitation, that one limitless Brahman,
and I am that Brahman.
It's always available to that enlightened person.
And so they really have no problems at all in life.
Shivapriya says, enlightened one, Sthitapragya is living always
with knowledge I am Brahman, but spiritual seeker,
knowledge cannot live with this always.
Yes, is that it Swamiji?
Yes, yes, that's it.
Subrata says, a swelling of Brahman can be explained as the Ananda,
the union of Para, Shiva and Shakti.
That's also true from the Shaiva perspective.
Pradeep Bose says, the sequence of steps described implies time,
in which step, is time created?
Yes, so time, space and causation, causality are all in Maya.
So they are deployed in the creation.
So there's a sequence and the sequence implies time.
Krama means time only,
and that time is already there,
it's the basic structure of Maya.
Maya is Satva, Rajas, Tamas.
Maya is time, space, causation.
Amira says, after realizing the nature of the self, when we are surrounded by
the inexplicable power of Maya on a daily basis, there's
a choice to witness it and step away.
If we decide to engage in the material creations of life, career,
relationships, how do we play our own roles in the mind
also, not to get trapped in this illusion?
Yes, that is why Nididhyasana is very important.
You realize it and you stay with this realization for some time
until it becomes effortless.
There'll always be a tendency to get swept away.
But what you're talking about is a pretty advanced stage
where already clarity has dawned.
Then how to make that clarity a part of our daily life?
Live it.
For that first stage would be Nididhyasana,
Vedantic or non-dual meditation.
To immerse yourself in clarity and stay with it, before you take it
out for a spin in the world.
Rajendra says, Swamiji, how is Vivartavada different from Avikrita-
Parinama Vada, Vallabhacharya?
They are actually different.
Vivartavada is a theory of causation held by Advaita Vedanta.
And this Avikrita Parinama Vada of Vallabhacharya is a theory
of causation held by Shuddhadvaita Vada.
Shuddhadvaita means pure Advaita, but basically it's pure dualism, dvaita.
What it says is that ultimately Vishnu or Krishna is non-dual.
And this entire universe is nothing but Krishna.
And it's real.
Krishna has become this universe.
You take what the Upanishad says, take it literally.
Krishna became the causal creation, subtle creation
and then this physical creation.
Really?
Yes, really.
But then in that case Krishna has changed.
No, Krishna has not changed.
How can something change without changing?
Literally, you're saying this.
That is the meaning of Avikrita Parinama Vada.
Avikrita without change, Parinama change.
The theory of without change, change.
And there's an answer to that.
He says you are thinking about worldly things.
Worldly things cannot change without changing.
They don't, they lose their nature if they transform them.
You know, yogurt, milk can become yogurt.
It's no longer milk.
It's transformed.
The seed can sprout into a tree.
It's no longer a seed.
It's transformed.
But Krishna can become or Vishnu can become
this universe without being transformed.
And that's because he's divine.
I can see some of you rolling your eyes.
Yes, that is the right response.
That's a theory.
See, that's the whole question is how do you reconcile
what the Upanishad just said?
Everyone accepts this Upanishad.
The Shuddhadvaita, Dvaita-Advaita, Advaita of Shankaracharya, Vishishta Advaita
of Ramanuja, Dvaita of Madhava, they all accept this Upanishad.
But you can clearly see if you really dig into this,
that imperishable, completely unchanging, it swelled
and then it produced a subtle universe, Hiranyagarbha.
And then it produced a physical universe of tremendous diversity.
All the examples of a spider, of a human body, of the earth
producing herbs and shrubs, they're all examples of actual change.
But yet the imperishable cannot undergo these actual changes because,
first of all, the very nature of pure being, pure consciousness,
how can there be a change?
Second, if there is a change, then the divine has lost its divinity.
See, there is a clear reason why the religions, dualistic religions,
Christianity, Islam, they say God is transcendent
and they deny that God can be immanent in this universe.
If God is immanent in this universe, if God transformed in
this universe, then God is no longer God.
That's the problem with pantheism.
How do you reconcile these two?
Either you have to sacrifice God, that God is separate and this universe
is separate, to protect the transcendent perfect nature of God.
Or you can divinize this entire universe.
You'll have to explain how God is this entire universe
without losing God's divine nature.
One answer might be what Vallabhacharya said and defended,
defended with a lot of logic.
God is not like your ordinary things, can be transformed into the universe
while retaining its divinity.
All right.
How do I make sense of that?
Well, because it's God.
Well, Advaita Vedanta gives, answer is, talk about two layers of truth.
Ultimate truth, untransformed Brahman and the lower truth is like fiction.
So all sorts of things can happen in fiction without affecting
the ultimate truth.
On the same paper you can write lots of stories.
The stories can talk about many things, but it all remains the same paper anyway.
Same movie, movie screen, can play lots of movies.
But the movie and the movie screen, the story and the paper
are not at the same level of reality.
Then you can have change and changelessness.
There is a world of changing universe, but they are appearances
in Brahman which is changeless.
Appearance and reality can coexist together, even if the appearance
contradicts the reality.
The reality is unchanging and the appearance is changing.
They can exist together if one is real and one is appearance.
But if two are real and they're contradictory,
they cannot coexist together.
It can't be both really changing and really unchanging.
So there are a lot of these theories.
Another theory is that parts. In part God is unchanging,
in another part, God is changing.
Immediately you'll see the problem.
So God, Brahman has parts.
Anything that has parts is compounded.
Anything that's compounded is subject to change and destruction.
So God will die someday.
So these are all problems.
I think Shankaracharya's approach, Advaita approach is the most logical, which is
why it is accepted philosophically.
The rest are relegated to theology.
Subrata says, can material cause be characterized as Sat
and intellectual cause be characterized as Chit?
No.
Sat, Chit, Ananda are the very nature of Brahman and they're
the very nature of Ishwara also.
Then the intelligent cause is Ishwara plus Maya.
Kaustubhi says, thank you for your time and generosity.
Kaustubhi here.
Do you teach the Upanishads from an Advaitic philosophical basis?
Absolutely.
This is one thing we must be clear about.
So what we are doing here, all these texts, for example,
Gambhiranandji's translation.
It's a translation of Shankara's commentary.
So I'm explaining Advaita, the Upanishads on the basis of Shankara's commentary.
Shankara's commentary is an Advaitic commentary,
classical Advaitic commentary.
So non-dualistic.
That you always have to keep in mind.
Kiran says, the austerity of knowledge, is it in reference to Saguna Brahman?
Nirguna Brahman has no attributes.
Yes.
See in this mantras, how smoothly he shifts from
Nirguna Brahman to Saguna Brahman.
Akshara, beyond all qualities, is Nirguna Brahman.
And the next he says, Bhutayonim, the source of all beings,
that is Saguna Brahman.
So it is Nirguna Brahman, which itself appears as Saguna Brahman.
Saguna Brahman is Ishwar or God.
Parul says, last lecture you did excerpt on Vairagya.
Yes, this is what I read.
Just now again I read.
Motherhood and faithfulness of opposites, I feel sometimes.
Oh yes.
So that's why motherhood,
if you are a parent, you are helplessly tied, you know,
by the bonds of affection to your own children.
Don't struggle against it.
Use that as a doorway to spiritual development
by seeing God in them.
Not by saying they don't exist, they are figments of my imagination.
You can't do it.
And it would be disastrous to try it.
Rather do it in a skillful way.
What Vivekananda says, see divinity in everybody.
See divinity in the child, in the people around you.
That's a much better way of… and that's also true.
Siddhartha says, is there a dreamer or only a dream?
The individual being who is a dreamer...
Is there a dreamer or only a dream?
Answer is in your own dreams.
Think about your own dreams.
You are there in your own dreams.
And that you, the person in the dream and the world of the dreams
are both appearances, part of the dream.
So from that perspective, there's only the dream.
Really there is no individual dreamer and the individual dream world.
However, there is an underlying reality to this whole dream, which is
the dreaming mind, which throws up the dream.
When it throws up the dream, a world is created
and then you are put in the world.
Both you in that world and the world, both are appearances
of an underlying mind.
So the underlying mind is reality, that's like Brahman.
And we, the individual being and the world which we experience,
both are appearances of Brahman.
Like Vivekananda said, one only exists.
It appears as nature, soul.
Object, subject.
But both of them are only one thing,
Consciousness or Brahman.
Swami Brahmananda, when he went to Vrindavan, did spiritual practices,
was following Drishti-Srishti Vada?
I don't think so.
All right, we'll leave it here.
Om Shanti Shanti Shantihi. Hari Om Tat Sat Shri Ramakrishna Arpanam astu.
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
