Quenching The Firebrand | Swami Sarvapriyananda

Summary

Swami Sarvapriyananda's lecture, "Quenching the Firebrand," explores the profound concepts of non-duality as articulated in the fourth chapter of the Mandukya Karika, known as Alatashanti Prakarana. The session delves into three principal themes: the question of the universe's existence, the controversies surrounding the Mandukya Karika's interpretation, and the ultimate realization of human nature's glory. Through insightful analyses, Swami Sarvapriyananda brings to light Gaudapada's philosophy of non-origination, the debates with other philosophical theories, and the conclusion that the universe is an appearance of pure consciousness, akin to dream images.

Highlights

• Swami Sarvapriyananda took a filosofical deep dive into non-duality through the Mandukya Karika 📘
• Gaudapada uses a firebrand as an analogy to explain the illusion of worldly appearances 🔥
• Different philosophical theories on causality and universe origination were scrutinized 🧐
• Gaudapada's ajatavada proposes the universe is unoriginated and only Brahman truly exists 🌌
• The lecture touches upon the controversy whether Mandukya Karika has Buddhist influences 🤔

Key Takeaways

• Understanding the non-origination theory of the universe by Gaudapada 🤔
• The firebrand analogy simplifies the illusion of worldly appearances 🔥
• Exploring different philosophies' attempt to explain the universe's origin 🧠
• Gaudapada's radical views reflect ancient wisdom that resonates today 🌟
• Realizing the self as pure consciousness transcending time and space 🌌

Overview

Swami Sarvapriyananda captivates with his detailed exploration into the philosophy of non-duality, focusing on Gaudapada's Mandukya Karika. He discusses the ajativada concept, which posits that the universe has no origin and only Brahman is real. By dissecting diverse causality theories, he highlights the illusory nature of worldly appearances, much like the patterns seen with a swirling firebrand.

The discourse unfolds the controversies surrounding the Mandukya Karika, especially claims of its Buddhist influence. Gaudapada's fourth chapter intriguingly mirrors Buddhist concepts, prompting debates about these interpretations. While acknowledging Buddhist philosophical prevalence during Gaudapada's era, Swami Sarvapriyananda clarifies the nuances distinguishing Vedantic non-duality.

Emphasizing our true nature beyond worldly illusions, Swami Sarvapriyananda elucidates Gaudapada's conclusion that consciousness alone is the eternal reality, analogous to space containing all transient experiences. This realization aligns with Vedantic wisdom, urging us to see beyond the transient and identify with our infinite, unchanging self.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 03:00: Introduction to Quenching the Firebrand The lecture titled 'Quenching the Firebrand' is the fourth in a series based on the Mandukya Karika. It follows the lectures 'The Essence of All Vedanta,' 'The Ultimate Truth,' and another from the previous week. This title suggests an intriguing concept within the overarching theme of the series.
• 03:00 - 11:00: The Question of Existence and Ajatavada The speaker refers to a state of 'No Mind' possibly due to exhaustion from a late-night return from San Diego and early morning obligations. The concept of 'No Mind' is hinted at potentially as a philosophical or experiential state, although the speaker is currently experiencing it more as fatigue-induced absent-mindedness. This provides a preamble to the discussion on 'Ajatavada', a philosophical viewpoint on existence, although details on Ajatavada are not yet provided in the excerpt.
• 11:00 - 37:00: Critique of Causality Theories The chapter titled 'Critique of Causality Theories' begins with a discussion on accepting ideas as absolute truth, highlighting the importance of critical thinking. Reference is made to 'No Mind' and the first three chapters of Mandukya Karika, an important philosophical text. The final chapter, 'Alatashanti Prakarana', which translates to 'the chapter on quenching the firebrand', focuses on key philosophical insights and theories related to causality and existence, offering a deep critique of established theories.
• 37:00 - 53:00: Controversy: Connection to Buddhism This chapter, titled 'Controversy: Connection to Buddhism,' covers various topics, primarily focusing on three main themes. Firstly, it delves into the philosophical question of why the universe exists. Secondly, it discusses a particular controversy that is not specified in detail in the excerpt. Lastly, it touches upon elements from the Mandukya Karika, with an emphasis on the fourth chapter. The chapter is described as a miscellany, indicating a collection of diverse subjects.
• 53:00 - 63:00: Gaudapada’s Conclusion and Non-Dualism The chapter begins by acknowledging the presence of controversy surrounding the topic at hand. The author intends to address this controversy, promising to discuss it next. Following the controversy, Gaudapada's glorious conclusion is highlighted. In this conclusion, Gaudapada wraps up the Mandukya Karika beautifully by discussing the glory of human nature and our true nature. Although the fourth chapter covers various topics, the focus here remains on these three key areas.
• 63:00 - 64:00: Final Thoughts and Peace Chant This chapter discusses three main themes, starting with the concept of 'alaatashanti,' which translates to 'quenching the firebrand.' The chapter raises the significant philosophical question of why the universe exists at all, a topic crucial to Gaudapada's goal of establishing an absolute non-duality perspective. The idea conveyed is that Brahman, an ultimate reality or consciousness, is the only true existence, and the universe as we experience it is merely an appearance or manifestation of Brahman.

Quenching The Firebrand | Swami Sarvapriyananda Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 This lecture today, it is titled Quenching the Firebrand. It seems to be a very strange and interesting title. It's actually the fourth in a series of four lectures based on the Mandukya Karika. The first one was called The Essence of All Vedanta. And then the second one was called The Ultimate Truth. The third one was last week.
• 00:30 - 01:00 It was called No Mind. By the way, I'm feeling some of that no mind. I came back at 12.30 from San Diego last night. And I finally went to sleep at 2 AM, or 2.30 AM, I think. And of course, we had to be up and about by 5.30 in the morning. So I'm feeling a bit of the no mind now. So all of what I say today, don't
• 01:00 - 01:30 take it as the gospel truth or non-duality. It just might be jet lag. So the third one was called No Mind. And the first one, two, three are based on the first three chapters of the Mandukya Karika. Mandukya Karika has four chapters. And the fourth one, which I'm going to talk about today, the name of the chapter is Alatashanti Prakarana, the chapter on quenching the firebrand. And that's why I have given this name, quenching the firebrand.
• 01:30 - 02:00 Now, this chapter is a bit of a miscellany. There are different things in this chapter. I am principally going to be talking about three things here. The first one is, no less than why does the universe exist? That's the question. The second one is a controversy. I'll get down to it. But the whole of the Mandukya Karika, and especially the fourth chapter,
• 02:00 - 02:30 there is a cloud of controversy surrounding it. And I would be failing if I did not touch upon it at least, at least bring it up. So we'll talk about that controversy next. And then finally, a very glorious conclusion. Gaudapada brings the entire Mandukya Karika to a wonderful conclusion, talking about the glory of human nature, of our own nature. So these are the three things I'll talk about. Though the fourth chapter talks about many things,
• 02:30 - 03:00 these are the three main themes I'll talk about this morning. First of all, this question of alaatashanti, quenching the firebrand. The first thing is this great question, why does this universe exist? Why is this question discussed at all? Because remember, Gaudapada wants to establish an absolute non-duality. Brahman alone exists, and nothing else. Existence, consciousness, place. So the apparent universe which we are experiencing right now,
• 03:00 - 03:30 according to Gaudapada, according to Advaita, does not have any real existence, no substantial existence. So he has to prove that the universe actually does not exist. That's what he wants to show. In order to show that, he will take up all the other theories which have been put forth to explain why the universe exists. In Indian philosophy, you find a range of other explanations
• 03:30 - 04:00 about the origination of the universe. And what Gaudapada wants to establish is the non-origination of the universe. What he is most famously or infamously known for is ajatavada. Ajatavada means the unborn nature of the universe. Brahman alone exists, and no universe was really created. Really is the operational word here, important key word here. Apparently, of course, the universe is there. Gaudapada does not deny that you see a universe.
• 04:00 - 04:30 But is it real other than the ultimate reality, pure consciousness, which is yourself? That is the question. And Gaudapada, the approach he takes is, instead of directly trying to demonstrate that which you cannot, what he does is takes up all the available theories and cuts them down. Shows that there is no cogent explanation for the existence of this universe or for the origination of the universe. This question is not esoteric or archaic.
• 04:30 - 05:00 It's actually quite modern. It's interesting that just recently I was reading this book, Why Does the World Exist by Jim Holt, who lives here in New York. He's a science journalist, very good writer. He has written another book recently. It already hit the bestseller charts. The book is called When Einstein Walked with Godel. You know, in Princeton, there is an institute called the Institute of Advanced Studies, IAS,
• 05:00 - 05:30 in Princeton University. And I heard the story how it was established that after the Depression, there was this very rich businessman who made an endowment to Princeton to establish the best science institute ever. And this gentleman was not very highly educated, but he wanted best people to come to this institute. And so he said, hire the best physicist. Who is the best physicist? And the director at that time, president, said, best physicist? Well, Einstein. Well, hire him.
• 05:30 - 06:00 Hire Einstein? Why should he come here? At that time, Princeton itself was not so well-known also. Why should Einstein come here? Anyhow, hire him. So he made an offer to Einstein, who was in Germany. And lo and behold, at that time, Professor Einstein was trying to get out of Germany, escape from Hitler. So when he got this offer, he said, fine, but I need so much money to resettle in the United States. This much salary I must be given. And then they said to the donor that Einstein is willing to come, actually.
• 06:00 - 06:30 And he wants this much salary. And the donor said, triple it into three and ask him to come over. And that's how Einstein came here, Princeton Institute of Advanced Studies. And then next, the donor asked, who is the greatest mathematician in the world? He said, Godel. Godel's incompleteness theorem. Get him. And they actually got him. And Einstein, the story goes, he was very popular and a very amiable person.
• 06:30 - 07:00 So he made friends with everybody. He'd walk around. And Godel was just the opposite. He was suspicious of everybody, cold and forbidding figure. The only friend he had was Einstein here. And these two, the greatest geniuses of the 20th century, they would take walks on the lawn there or they would walk together. And so that's how the book is named, when Einstein walked with Godel here. But his earlier book, which is very interesting, why does the world exist? And I'll show you the relationship,
• 07:00 - 07:30 what I'm going to speak about. This gentleman, he thought, Jim Holt, he thought that the greatest question is, why is there something rather than nothing? And so he goes around asking this question. What explanation is there for the origin of this universe? World by world, he means the entire universe, everything. What is the origin of this? And is it Big Bang? He goes to physicists and asks, can physics explain the origin of the universe? Is it God? Is God the origin of the universe?
• 07:30 - 08:00 He goes to the top theologians of the world, not only in New York, he goes to Oxford University and different places in Europe and asks them, could God, the concept of God, explain the universe? He goes to mathematicians, famously Sir Roger Penrose, who is a mathematical physicist. And they have a very beautiful interview with him. Can you explain the origin of the universe from mathematics? I remember that I had once heard Sir Roger Penrose give a talk
• 08:00 - 08:30 in a very famous book, Emperor's New Mind. I had heard him give a talk in Calcutta. It was sponsored by the British Council. So Sir Roger came there and gave a talk. And what struck me was, first of all, this cutting edge physicist in the world today. The talk he gave was entirely on no computers, no projectors or PowerPoint, entirely on this. You know, this transparency, the older people here will know. OHP, overhead projector, he was using that
• 08:30 - 09:00 and he was drawing little squiggles. And his presentation was quite amazing, even from a Vedantic standpoint. Because his point was, what puzzles him is this amazing congruence between human consciousness, physics, and mathematics. Mathematics, he drew a triangle. Mathematics, physics, human consciousness. The universe, what he called the platonic world of numbers,
• 09:00 - 09:30 and human consciousness. How are the three connected? Because obviously, they are connected. We understand mathematics and do mathematics. We understand the universe through physics. And mathematics explains a lot of physics. Mathematics is used to make physics discoveries. And the three seem to be connected, and yet they should not be connected. So that was his theme. Anyhow, Jim Holt goes and asks all these people, asks these questions. And the result is he has put in a book.
• 09:30 - 10:00 If you are eagerly listening, what is the answer? There's no final answer given. They don't look for the answer, but enjoy the journey when you read that book. Exactly the same question is taken up by Gaudapada 1,400 years ago. How does the universe originate? What are the available theories? So like Jim Holt, Gaudapada goes around asking the different philosophers of the time, give me your theories. How does the universe originate? So he takes up, broadly speaking,
• 10:00 - 10:30 I'm going to summarize a lot here very quickly. This is basically the subject of causality. Cause of not cause of one thing. The seed is the cause of the tree. Parents are the cause of children. Not just one thing. Cause of everything. What is the cause of everything in the universe? The universe itself. So that's that question, the question of causality. And Gaudapada will go on to establish non-causality.
• 10:30 - 11:00 There is no causality ultimately. That's what he wants to establish. He takes up the various theories of causality available in Indian philosophy at that time. So the first one he takes up, basically he talks about a theory of the Nyaya Vaiseshikas, the logicians. Then he talks about the theory of the Sankhyas. Then he talks about the theory of karma. Theory of karma. He talks about a theory offered later by the Vishistha Advaitins.
• 11:00 - 11:30 At that time, the Vishistha Advaitins had not originated that particular theory. But anyway, he talks about the Buddhistic approach to it. And finally, he talks about the Upanishads themselves. Because the Upanishads themselves offer many theories about the origin of the universe. And refutes all of them, including, strangely enough, even the Upanishads. But he doesn't refute it. He explains it in a different way. So what does he say? Very quickly, I'm going to cruise through it very fast. I'm not going to go into the depths.
• 11:30 - 12:00 They are very subtle issues. And prolonged debates are there between each school of causality. The debates have lasted for more than 1,000 years, 1,500 years or so. So I'm going to summarize that in five minutes. But very quickly, the Nyaya-Vaisheshika school, there are two schools, actually, Nyaya and Vaisheshika. But they are known as sister philosophies because they don't have too many conflicts between themselves. They are realists. And their idea of causality is called asatkaryavada.
• 12:00 - 12:30 The technical term asatkaryavada means non-preexistence of the effect in the cause. What does that mean? When the cause gives rise to the effect, did the effect exist in any form in the cause earlier? Or is it entirely new? Is it entirely new? Now, these might sound peculiar. They are not because there are modern counterparts
• 12:30 - 13:00 to all of these. Even today, we are discussing this, the whole idea of emergence, theory of emergence, that new properties, do they emerge out of which were previously non-existing? So this is exactly what the Nyayikas are saying, that the universe as such did not exist earlier, but by a combination of fundamental particles. And they talk about fundamental particles. They talk about eternity of space and free-floating particles, which they call atoms.
• 13:00 - 13:30 In fact, the Indian word, in all Indian languages, anu, the word used for atoms, comes from the Vaisheshika philosopher Kanada. So the atomic theory, that what happens is that from a cause where the effect did not exist earlier, it arises. Now, Gaudapada immediately cuts it down. He says that if the effect did not exist in any form at all
• 13:30 - 14:00 in the cause, there was no link with the cause, then anything can arise from anything. You see? An apple tree might as well come up from a mango seed because there is no link between the cause and effect. So what is the link between cause and effect if the effect arises without any previous existence in the cause? So that is the, very briefly speaking, the problem with asatkaryavada. That means the spontaneous emergence of the effect.
• 14:00 - 14:30 Here, the effect is the whole universe. Again, when I was reading that, I'm just amazed to see exactly the same thing is being discussed, but in the modern language of quantum physics by Jim Holt, when he goes to meet quantum physicists, they're talking about how the universe emerged. The standard idea we hear about is the Big Bang theory. But then the question arises, so how did the universe emerge?
• 14:30 - 15:00 See, Jim Holt's question is, where did it come from? What is the cause? So for the Big Bang also, you can ask, what is the cause? So the answer given by quantum mechanics now, again, I'm speaking without knowing what I'm speaking about. Not just because of San Diego last night, but also I'm not a physicist. So physicists among you will know better what they're talking about. He offers a variety of explanations which he got from interviewing different physicists. He says, at the quantum level, things get weird, he says.
• 15:00 - 15:30 That particles pop in and out of existence randomly. So it will look like out of nothing it has come. Out of nothing it has come. So did the universe come from nothing? That's what the preliminary answer he gets from the physicists. And that seems to be like the Nyaya-Vaisheshika theory. Non-existing effect arises from the cause. Entirely new.
• 15:30 - 16:00 And Jim Holt comes to the same conclusion as Gaurapada, that that cannot be. Something did not exist earlier. How can non-existence give rise to existence? And when he asked this question, this is a direct echo of in the Chandogya Upanishad. Asatah karam sad jayeta. How can existence come out of non-existence? Existence comes out of previous existence. And as he probes further, the quantum physicists
• 16:00 - 16:30 tell him, actually you're right. That quantum flux is not non-existence. It's not that the particles come out of nothing. There is actually the phrase he uses, very interesting phrase, nothingness is unstable. Nothingness is unstable. That means it seems that the quantum vacuum is actually full of virtual particles and lots of ghostly happenings, which give rise to actual particles in our universe.
• 16:30 - 17:00 So it's not absolute nothing. There is something going on, and a lot going on there, which can be described mathematically or at least statistically. That brings us to the second theory, which is the Sankhya Yoga theory, which is called Satkaryavada. Universe emerges not from nothing, but from a previously existing something. The effect pre-existed in the cause in a hidden form, and it was manifested. So cause to effect is not a new creation,
• 17:00 - 17:30 but rather the manifestation of a previously hidden potential. Now this is a very sophisticated idea of causation. It tallies very well with modern understanding. So for example, when a mango seed gives rise to a mango tree, the mango tree in its potential, now we know it definitely existed in the DNA, in the seed itself. It couldn't have come out any other way. So the information is already coded into the cause,
• 17:30 - 18:00 and that is only expressed as the effect. Whether it is a mango tree or it's the entire universe, in some potential form, it must have existed in the cause. And now what is creation? It is just manifestation of an unmanifest effect. The effect was unmanifest, hidden in the cause. Now it is manifested. So it is called Satkaryavada, the effect pre-existed
• 18:00 - 18:30 in the cause in a hidden form, in a potential form. This Satkaryavada is a fundamental theory. It is the most popular theory of causation in Indian philosophy, accepted by Sankhya and Yoga, and in some form by Vedanta, in a modified form by Vedanta also. Gaudapada will have nothing of it. He cuts it down immediately. He says, see, according to the Sankhya, prakriti composed of sattva, rajas, tamas. I'm going very fast.
• 18:30 - 19:00 I'm not going to explain anything here. Prakriti composed of sattva, rajas, tamas is an unmanifest reality, but it is unstable. I mean, I'm always amazed at how his language parallels what James Holt is interviewing, Penrose, and a number of other top physicists. Exactly the same language. Of course, I'm not saying Gaudapada knew physics or knew mathematics and all of that. But the principle, he's so amazingly, it's exactly shadowing. The Sankhyans say prakriti is unstable.
• 19:00 - 19:30 Though it's unmanifest, it looks like nothing. It's unstable. It produces, it changes into the universe. Now the Sankhyans insist prakriti, the root nature, is eternal and yet changing. And that's where Gaudapada catches. If it is eternal, it cannot be unchanging. It cannot be changing. It must be in some sense eternal and unchanging. If it changes into the universe, it cannot be eternal. It's gone now.
• 19:30 - 20:00 So this crucial place Gaudapada catches, the Sankhyans, how can an eternal, unchanging prakriti give rise to a changing universe? How can it change, actually change into the universe? This is where Gaudapada catches, and he lets go of that theory. Then comes another theory, the law of karma, which is a favorite among all Indian philosophers, except Gaudapada. He doesn't like it.
• 20:00 - 20:30 The law of karma states basically, law of karma is causality at its essence. All effects have causes. And every cause will have a consequence and effect. So whatever we are experiencing in our own lives and in the physical universe, all have their effects in the past. And whatever we do now and whatever is happening now in the physical universe, all will have their effects in the future. Now Gaudapada asks this question.
• 20:30 - 21:00 If this entire universe is a product of our karma, then where did this karma come from? Answer is usually past lives. And then where did those past lives come from, from the previous karma of the earlier lives? And where did those earlier lives come from, the lives before that? Immediately you'll ask the question, where did it all start? Where did the first karma start? There is an answer. The people who propound the law of karma, they say the first karma did not start.
• 21:00 - 21:30 It is meaningless to speak about the first karma. It's a beginningless series. Gaudapada immediately catches. A beginningless series, anadi in Sanskrit, a beginningless series sounds suspiciously like an endless series also. That which is without beginning probably has no end. If it has no end, then moksha, liberation, the whole point of these Indian philosophies, moksha, nirvana, it's not possible. If you are caught in an unending chain of karma,
• 21:30 - 22:00 cause and effect, effects become causes, causes become effects, then you will keep on going through karma and births and deaths. There is no escape then. And supposing you say, no, there is an escape. Karma comes to an end. Our cycle of births and deaths comes to an end. All the Indian philosophies want to say this, except the materialist, the Charvaka, the Hindus, and the Jains, and the Buddhists, they all want to say liberation is possible. Moksha is possible.
• 22:00 - 22:30 Nirvana is possible. Gaurapada, of course, immediately he catches there. He says, oh, then karma is real. Yes. And karma has an end. Yes. And that leads to moksha. Moksha begins after karma ends. Yes. That which begins also must come to an end. If moksha begins, then it has a beginning. It will probably have an end. The Buddha himself said, all compounded things fall apart. That which has a beginning will also have an end. If moksha has a beginning, if nirvana has a beginning,
• 22:30 - 23:00 if freedom has a beginning, it will end in bondage. So he dispenses with the karma theory. He's going to ruin everything. Then comes what later became the Vishistha-Advaita theory, that it's not that something produced something else. It is one integral whole. This universe was not actually produced by something,
• 23:00 - 23:30 Brahman or Prakriti or something. But it is the body of God. Vishistha-Advaita says there is one divine unity in this universe. It's not one cause and effect. Within the universe, there is cause and effect. But the entire universe was not produced by something else. The entire universe is eternal, the body of God. So this is all Brahman. Then Gaurapada asks, but within the universe, do I accept change? Causes become effects. Obviously, there is change. If this is real, parents give birth to children, parents die,
• 23:30 - 24:00 children grow up, and children die, and the grandchildren grow up. The world rotates, and seasons change. There's continuous change here. Yes, within the universe, there is change. But this universe, you said, is a part of Brahman, the eternal reality? Yes. So Brahman is subject to change? No, a part is subject to change, and the rest is not subject to change. So Brahman is a composite unity, like a part of which is always changing and part unchanging.
• 24:00 - 24:30 And then he gives the example of a chicken. You eat the top half and expect the bottom to lay eggs also? Gaurapada does not give that example. Shankaracharya gives that example. And so Gaurapada gives up this half-baked theory that part of it can change and part of it cannot change, and they're all part of the same thing. Then you are actually admitting God can change and grow old and die, basically.
• 24:30 - 25:00 That does not make sense to Gaurapada. Then along comes the last one he takes up, is the Buddhist approach. The Buddhist approach is not so much a theory of origination, but there is a world, their approach is artha-kriya-karitvam, which means practical efficiency, practical efficacy. You cannot dismiss the world. This is one school of Buddhism, actually. This is one school of Buddhism. You cannot dismiss the world because it works.
• 25:00 - 25:30 You feel thirsty, you drink water, you're thirsty, satisfied. You get into a car and drive, you go from Vedanta society to the Empire State Building. It works. Everything works in the world. What you see, because it has practical efficiency, it must work. If it was false, and he says, Gaurapada, you claim that the world is an appearance. If it was false, like the water in a mirage, and I went to drink that water in a mirage,
• 25:30 - 26:00 it wouldn't satisfy my thirst. So that I can say it's false, because it does not work in reality. It has no practical value. But this universe has practical value. It has got utility. That utility shows that it is real. That's the Buddhistic approach. It's not exactly a theory of origination, but Gaurapada immediately says that, but in dreams, if you were to feel thirsty, and you took up
• 26:00 - 26:30 a glass of water, what water? Dream water. You drank it. It would satisfy your thirst. What thirst? Dream thirst. But when you woke up, you would see that there was no such water, and the thirst also was not real in the waking state. In which case, though it worked, afterwards when you wake up, you deny the whole thing. You don't say that I drank water in my dream. I don't need any water now. No. So it could work in a dream, and yet it could still be a dream.
• 26:30 - 27:00 Again, I see how contemporary these theories are. The whole of pragmatism, William James, Charles Pierce, it's a classic American philosophy, pragmatism, is based on utility and truth. So if it works, it's real. And it has its effects in, it has its uses in the world of philosophy. But ultimately, the universe, because it works, because it can give you a practical value, and therefore it is real, no.
• 27:00 - 27:30 That argument, Gaurapada doesn't buy into that. Then what is his argument? He says that this world is not real. It's an appearance of Brahman. Brahman did not give rise to a real world. That's his argument. What's it like? Example is the dream example, where you see people and events happen. You go to places, time, space, people, objects, everything seen in a dream.
• 27:30 - 28:00 When you wake up, what do you say? Oh, it was a dream. It was all in my mind. It was not really. I did not actually go to those places. I did not actually meet those people. I did not actually eat that food. It was all my mind. Though I experienced it all, but I know it's not real. Why? It was nothing apart from my mind. Similarly, Gaurapada says, very carefully, and many people think that Gaurapada said this world is also a projection of the mind.
• 28:00 - 28:30 He doesn't mean to say that. He says this world is imagined in consciousness, just as your dreams are imagined in your mind. Dreams are projection of the mind. Nobody denies. This world is experienced in consciousness and is nothing apart from consciousness. That is the conclusion of Gaurapada, based on the dream example. Then he introduces a curious example, which is the reason for the name of the chapter. He says, take a firebrand.
• 28:30 - 29:00 You know what a firebrand is? Like a glowing piece of charcoal. And you swing it around in various circles and patterns. And you will see glowing patterns, especially at night. You get a wonderful display of patterns in the sky when you swing it around. Circles and whatnot. And ellipses. But those are not there. They're illusions because of that point of light.
• 29:00 - 29:30 Exactly like that, he says, because of consciousness, we have the experience of a universe which actually does not exist in itself. When you realize this, he calls it alatha shanti. Alatha means firebrand. Alatha chakra, firebrand circle. So that's the example he uses. And quenching the firebrand. If you put the firebrand in water, it hisses and goes out. So quenching the firebrand is you put this whole idea of the origination of the universe.
• 29:30 - 30:00 It's like the whirling the firebrand. It's a circle of firebrand. You put it in the cooling water of the knowledge which Gaurapada is offering, and it hisses and goes out. And you realize it was not there at all. So that's the example. And that's why the name has come. Alatha shanti. Prakarana, quenching the firebrand, or the cessation of the whirling of the firebrand. Now that still leaves one question.
• 30:00 - 30:30 That Gaurapada, oh Gaurapada, your own Upanishads, your Vedantic. So your own Upanishads, they talk about the origin of the universe. Taittiri Upanishad says, tasmat va etasmat atmana akasas sambhutah From this very atman, from this very consciousness, space and air and fire and water and earth were produced. And by the mixture of the five elements, this universe was produced. Your own Upanishads talk about the origination
• 30:30 - 31:00 of the universe. So how do you explain that? You can't say they are wrong. And Gaurapada has to toe a very careful line here. If he cuts those down, then he has cut down his own root. You know the famous story? He refers to Kalidas or somebody who, the great poet who was a dud before he became a great poet. He was sitting on a branch of a tree and then cutting the branch. You know, like he was sitting facing the tree. And the branches, cutting the branch itself. So he would fall down. Now you can't cut down the Upanishads because he is, after all, a Vedantin.
• 31:00 - 31:30 What he says is, that's a standard explanation that we have in Vedanta, is that the Upanishads give you a graded answer. Straight away, if you are told there's no world, it's only Brahman, we are left high and dry. The world is all we know. And Brahman is something we don't understand. How are we to ever understand this kind of a theory? It seems too radical. Now they introduce, here is the world.
• 31:30 - 32:00 Don't worry. Here is the world. OK. I'm happy. Now just think, the world has a cause. It is called Brahman. It works that classic example of the clay pot. You have a pot. Really, it is clay. And if I do not know what clay is, if somebody comes to me and says that you don't have a pot, there is no pot. I'm holding a pot. What do you mean there's no pot? The way to convince me would be, you would say, look,
• 32:00 - 32:30 here is your pot. Be happy with it. No problem. I'm not taking it away from you. Oh, good. Let me clutch my pot. And then, now think. This pot has a cause. It originated from its cause. I see. What is the cause? I've got the pot. I'm safe. The pot is safe. What is the cause? The cause is clay, the material out of which the pot has come. So the cause is clay, and the effect is pot. OK, I get it. Very nice. Where is the clay? Look at the pot.
• 32:30 - 33:00 OK. The top is clay. The bottom is clay. Inside is clay. Outside is clay. What you are touching is clay. What you weigh is the clay. In fact, through and through, it is clay alone. OK, I see. Oh, so this is clay. Now think. If it is through and through clay alone, there is no such thing called the pot. You're not holding a pot. You're holding clay. Then what is a pot?
• 33:00 - 33:30 It's a name. It's a particular form. It's a particular use. Nama, rupa, vyavahara in Sanskrit. But it's not a thing. It's not a substance. It's not a reality in itself. If you argue, if I argue, no, all right, I get it. There is clay. But as you said, there is a form. So the form is also there, right? No, the form is not there in the sense that the clay is there. Because if you take the clay away, the form will not be there.
• 33:30 - 34:00 Clay can exist without the form. But the form cannot exist without the clay. Just think about it. The form of a pot, can it exist without the clay, constituent clay? No. Can the clay exist without the pot? Yes. If it was not, if it was a lump of clay before it was a pot. If you break the pot, it'll be pot shards, broken pieces of a pot. So it will not, the pot depends on the clay. The clay does not depend on the pot. The pot is not a reality in the sense that clay is a reality. Clay alone is real.
• 34:00 - 34:30 Pot is an appearance of the clay. Pot real, pot satyam, no. Clay satyam, pot mithya. And not that jiva is clay alone, that you are the clay alone. No, I'm not saying that. Clay alone is real. The pot is an appearance thereof. We come to that conclusion. If you come to that conclusion, it's all right. What Gaudapada is objecting to is, if you stop halfway,
• 34:30 - 35:00 if you say there is clay, the cause of the pot. There's something called a pot and something called clay, and the clay has caused a pot. If you stop there, Gaudapada objects to it. You can never demonstrate two things causally linked. There's no real causation there. What you did was you used the theory of causation. The pot is an effect. Clay is a cause. Investigate it using the cause-effect relationship. You will end up with clay alone. And then cause-effect relationship is given up.
• 35:00 - 35:30 Because clay did not actually produce a pot. There's no effect called a pot. Are you following me? There's no real effect called a pot. So there's no real causation involved. But the theory of causation was used for what? For going from the pot paradigm to the clay paradigm. What is the use of going from the pot paradigm to the clay paradigm? The clay paradigm is real, is more real, is real compared to the pot paradigm. I'm having a good time, I hope.
• 35:30 - 36:00 But if you stop halfway in between, there is something real called clay. Somebody wrote an email to me. Unless you think it through, it will appear like that. Swami, I used to think it was a pot, but now you say it's clay. I realize that. But still, it seems to me there are two realities, clay and pot. Somebody wrote an email to me. There are not two realities. How can you prove it?
• 36:00 - 36:30 Simple. I'll keep the clay, you keep your pot. For pot and clay, it might not make so much a difference. If it's a golden necklace, for example, I'll keep the gold, you keep the necklace. No, it will not work. There is no separate thing called a pot. If you stop there, clay and pot, clay is real, pot is also real. Then this is what Alan Watts calls the crackpot theory. Crackpot theory. And exactly, Gaudapada agrees with him.
• 36:30 - 37:00 Or rather, we should say Alan Watts agrees with Gaudapada, because Gaudapada was 14 centuries before him. He says, this does not stand. But the theory of causation can be used to investigate and come to the understanding that it is consciousness alone. All right. So these are the theories which he has taken up. I thought I would take five minutes to explain. I've taken 30 minutes. This is just the first opening theme. Two more things to go through.
• 37:00 - 37:30 Very quickly then. The second one is the controversy, I said, which I would like to touch upon. The controversy is this. The Mandukya Karika, the four chapters, and especially the fourth chapter, this one, some scholars in modern times have said it clearly shows a Buddhistic influence. Is it Hindu or is it Buddhist? Not only that, Professor S.N. Dasgupta, who was a great scholar of Indian philosophy in the 20th century,
• 37:30 - 38:00 he goes so far as to say clear influences of Buddhism are seen throughout the Mandukya Karika, and probably Gaurapada was a Buddhist. He goes on to say that. And there are others. Vidushekar Bhattacharya, who was a great professor of Buddhism in Shantiniketan, he also analyzes this and comes up with the conclusion that it is strongly Buddhistic. Why? Why do they say that?
• 38:00 - 38:30 I'll give many reasons. For the detailed discussion of this thing, one place I can refer you to is Swami Nikhilananda's translation of the Mandukya Karika, not the one published from here, but the one published from Madras Math in India. So that edition has a long and detailed introduction where this whole issue of Buddhistic origins of Mandukya Karika is taken up and point by point, the question is discussed.
• 38:30 - 39:00 But let me just give you a taste of what's going on there. Why do they say such a thing? Why do they say it's Buddhistic? Well, in the fourth chapter, the first verse, Gaurapada starts off with these words. Sambuddham vande dvipadam varam. I salute sambuddha, the Buddha, the awakened one, the most excellent among all human beings.
• 39:00 - 39:30 You start off by saluting Buddha. That's one. At the very end of the, it's a big chapter with 100 karikas, 100 verses. The 99th verse ends by almost, the last verse, it's sort of concludes, wraps up by saying, Naitat buddhena bhashitam. What I've taught here was not taught by the Buddha. You say, well, that's it, clear. Gaurapada himself is saying it was not taught by the Buddha.
• 39:30 - 40:00 But wait a minute. Why did he say that? If it is not a Buddhistic teaching, why would he suddenly say, it was not taught by XYZ, suddenly? And throughout the 100 verses, numerous Buddhist terms, clearly Buddhistic terms, jiva, the sentient being, called dharmaha, which is not usually a term used in Vedanta. It's a term used in Buddhism. So these terms are used and the arguments are also Buddhistic.
• 40:00 - 40:30 Even the name of the chapter, Alatashanti, is Buddhistic. And so for these reasons, you see, there is numerous examples to show that Buddhistic influence. What are the answers to this? The opposing side? Well, the answers are numerous. For example, when you start off by saluting the Buddha, the word Buddha means the awakened one. And Shankaracharya explains there, sambuddha means the awakened one, the teacher of this philosophy.
• 40:30 - 41:00 Dvipadamvaram, the most excellent among all beings, he refers to Narayana, he says, Shankaracharya says very clearly. The Hindu deity Narayana. At the very end, when Gaurapada says, naitad buddhenabhashitam, this was not taught by the Buddha. Shankaracharya explains, why did he suddenly say this? Shankaracharya says, when the Buddha denies the reality of the external, when the Buddha teaches the unreality of the external world,
• 41:00 - 41:30 and the reality of consciousness alone, he has come very close to non-duality. But the non-duality taught here, that you are the non-dual truth, you, this can be known from the Upanishads, from Vedanta alone. Therefore, this was not taught by the Buddha. So that is Shankaracharya's, when he says, bhayatha nirakaranam, denial of external realities,
• 41:30 - 42:00 caitanya matra kalpana, the conception of consciousness alone, caitanya matra kalpana cha, advaya vastu samipyamuktam, simple Sanskrit. Samipyam in Sanskrit word means closeness. In Indian languages also, samipyam, samip in Hindi, means near something, close. Close to what? Advaya vastu, the non-dual reality. So the Buddha has taught something which is pretty close to what we are saying.
• 42:00 - 42:30 And this is a very grudging admission from Shankaracharya. Because on numerous occasions, he refutes Buddhistic teachings. But on this occasion, he clearly says, what the Buddha has taught is really very close to what we are saying. That's why Gaurapada makes the distinction, Nai tad buddhena bhashitam, this is not exactly the teaching of the Buddha. Where does it differ? Well, in many places.
• 42:30 - 43:00 For example, Upanishad, Mandukya Upanishad. Upanishad clearly is a Vedic text. There is no question of any of the Buddhist schools taking up a Vedic text to give their teachings. Not only that, as far as I'm aware, I may be wrong, but as far as I'm aware, from all my studies of Buddhistic schools, I've never come across any Buddhistic school which claims the Mandukya as its text. Buddhists never claim the Mandukya as the text. So it does not seem that the Mandukya Upanishad was a Buddhistic text.
• 43:00 - 43:30 What about the influence of Buddhism on the Mandukya? Clearly there is an influence. There's no doubt. You should not, one should not deny it. But this influence is not surprising, because at the time Gaudapada was writing this, 1400 years ago, Buddhism was at its peak or just past its peak. Very popular, very widespread in India. And the terminology of Buddhism was scattered throughout discussions of Indian philosophy in those days, 1400 years ago.
• 43:30 - 44:00 It is very natural that Gaudapada would use the current terminology to give his teachings. For example, the great Advaita teacher Madhusudana Saraswati, who lived some 500 years ago, contemporary of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, he uses extensive Navya Nyaya terminology, the terminology of the Neologic school in India.
• 44:00 - 44:30 And indeed, all philosophers at that time, they used the Navya Nyaya terminology. Though they are not part of the Nyaya school, they are opposed to the Nyaya school. They may be non-dualists or Dvaita Vedanta or Vishishta Dvaita Vedanta, but they all use that terminology. Even to refute the school of Nyaya, they use Nyaya terminology. Why? Because it's a very convenient, very precise language for your philosophy. It was developed for philosophy.
• 44:30 - 45:00 Exactly like that, Gaudapada could have used and definitely has used Buddhistic terms and Buddhistic argumentation techniques and logic and presented his teachings. Anyway, one could go on. So we'll put that aside and come to the conclusion. Concluding the fourth chapter and the entire Mandukya Karika, Gaudapada brings it to a very glorious declaration of our nature, inner nature.
• 45:00 - 45:30 Harp back to the core teaching of the Mandukya Upanishad, that our entire world of experience, this universe, and I, the experiencer, the subject and the object, the knower, the known and the knowledge that we have. And the dream experience, knower, known and the knowledge that we have in dream. And the deep sleep subject, object, undifferentiated darkness of deep sleep. All three are appearing in what is called the fourth.
• 45:30 - 46:00 The three are appearances and the fourth is the reality. Or we can say the fourth called the Turiya. The Turiya, another name for Brahman, Atman and so on. The Turiya, the pure consciousness in which all the experiences arise. That is the one reality and the three are appearances. The Turiya is the reality, Brahman, Brahman is real, Brahmasatyam.
• 46:00 - 46:30 Jagatmitya, the universe is an appearance. What is the universe? Waking universe, dream universe, deep sleep. Deep sleep universe is an oxymoron, but basically it's the waking and dream universes packed into an indistinguishable mass in the deep sleep experience. The three universes are appearances and that one consciousness is real. You say, so you are that one consciousness.
• 46:30 - 47:00 The Upanishad says, I am Atma, Brahman. This very self is the ultimate reality. And that is that conclusion, Gaurapada puts in such beautiful language at the end of the... He brings his masterpiece to a conclusion. He says, Prakritya akashavad ghenyaha sarve dharma
• 47:00 - 47:30 Look at the word dharma, sarve dharma anadaya By their very nature, all these sentient beings, they are like the sky, eternal like the sky. What do you mean like the sky? We'll come to it. They are like the sky. Vidyate nahi nanatvam teshasam kvachanak in janam There is no diversity, there is no multiplicity here among all these sentient beings,
• 47:30 - 48:00 though they seem to be multiple. There never was, nowhere was any multiplicity. Now, what a remarkable thing it said. It said you are like the sky. Sky in what sense? You are like the sky encompasses everything. Everything in the universe exists in space or a physicist would say in space-time. Everything in the universe exists in space-time. In the same way, everything that you experience in life actually exists in you, the consciousness.
• 48:00 - 48:30 That fourth turiya, it is in that that the entire universe, waking, dreaming and deep sleep is experienced. Those experiences, those things are in the turiya. In the sense, they are appearances of that one turiya. So you are like the sky encompassing the entire universe. We thought I am this little creature and I'm enclosed in a bag of skin. Beyond that I don't exist. My limit is this much. Up to the tip of my finger I exist, no more.
• 48:30 - 49:00 But Gaurapada says you are the awareness. When this was being taught, one monk, he said just a minute, he told the Swami who was teaching, just a minute, very practical question. Just a minute. You say I am all pervading. It sounds nice, but practically let me ask. I feel I am here. I am here and not even there. I don't even pervade this room. How can I pervade the entire universe? I am here and not there. That's what I feel. You are saying at this moment you are all pervasive. Look at the answer.
• 49:00 - 49:30 The answer was, in Hindi he asked, I am here and not there. He says here and there, are they not both experienced in your own awareness? Here and there, are they not both in your own awareness? What does that mean? Very easy to understand. Suppose in terms of a dream, somebody tells you, oh, this is a dream.
• 49:30 - 50:00 It's not real. You're standing here in Central Park, maybe. You are actually lying in your bed and dreaming all this up. You are all of this. You pervade all of this. And you say, no, I'm standing here by the lake and this huge lake and the huge Central Park and Manhattan. I'm here. I'm not there. But when you wake up, what will happen? You realize all of that, that little guy there and the lake and the park and Manhattan and the entire universe was in your mind.
• 50:00 - 50:30 So, OK, that's a dream. But what about this? This is exactly like that. Not a projection of your mind, but a projection in consciousness. All of this here and there, now and then, I and that, this me and this subject and object, they are all appearances, arisings in consciousness. They shine in consciousness and disappear back into consciousness. That one consciousness, you are like the sky. A devotee, of course, easier said than done.
• 50:30 - 51:00 A devotee used to come to Sri Ramakrishna, who liked this. You know, he would say, I'm the sky. And Sri Ramakrishna said, yes, you are the sky. I am the sky. Amikha in Bengali, I'm the sky. And then the taxmen were after him, the IRS, in those days. He was worried about being, you know, he sort of grumbled, I'll be ruined at these rates of taxation. And Sri Ramakrishna burst into laughter. But you are the sky.
• 51:00 - 51:30 Let the rascals come and take away your pots and pans. Goti bati nija kshalara. Let the rascals come and take away your pots and pans. Sri Ramakrishna understood his struggle, which points to two things. One is this attitude, if one can hold on to it, it gives you a real serenity and peace. But it's also not easy, especially around tax day, I think. The sky is taintless, stainless. Think about it. All the pollution, there's so much pollution and global warming that's in the atmosphere.
• 51:30 - 52:00 Space itself is not tainted by pollution. When there's fire burning, the air there heats up, the place heats up. But the sky doesn't heat up. Space doesn't heat up. If there is a flood, that place becomes drenched. But space does not become drenched. Space is not affected. Space is not created. Think about it this way.
• 52:00 - 52:30 Gaurapada gives this example. Vast space is there. Now you take a pot and say that, OK, there is the space and there is a pot space. What is the pot space? The space enclosed by this pot. The moment I've made a pot, a pot space is born. Is it true? No, it's an illusion. It seems that there is a space enclosed by the pot.
• 52:30 - 53:00 So why not? That space holds one liter of water. So there's an enclosed space. The space does not hold one liter of water. It's the pot which holds one liter of water. Think about it. The example is, suppose I have a glass of water here. If I move the glass, will the water move with it? What do you think? You're not sure? Otherwise it will make a terrible wet mess if I move the glass and the water stays there.
• 53:00 - 53:30 The water moves with it because the water is actually enclosed by the glass. It's actually within the glass. It is held by the glass. But suppose there's an empty glass. Of course, there is air there, but space, empty glass. When I move the glass, does the space within the glass move with the glass? What do you think? Some people are thinking very hard. No, it doesn't. It doesn't. It's not that the space within the glass moves with the glass. It's the glass which moves through space.
• 53:30 - 54:00 When we are moving, the space enclosed in our bellies, in our chest, inside us, it's not that it's moving with us. Our organs are moving with us, with this body. But we are moving through space. Space is not affected by whatever is enclosed in space. Space is not born when you create a part. Similarly, when a body is born, consciousness is not born with the body. The body appears in consciousness. We tend to get identified with it and say,
• 54:00 - 54:30 I was born in such and such time and then this person was born and this person dies. Birth and death are of the body. Only consciousness associated with the body, identifying with the body says, I am born, I shall die. Space is neither created nor destroyed. You, the consciousness, are like that. You, like space, is not stained. You, the consciousness, are like that. You are not affected by either merit or demerit.
• 54:30 - 55:00 No sin can touch you. As Vivekananda said, sinners, it is a sin to call ye so. You are the children of immortal bliss. He said in this country more than 100 years ago. He's talking about this. Consciousness is not affected by that. Yes, as long as you are in a body-mind, think of yourself as we all do, as this limited individual. This limited individual is subject to karma,
• 55:00 - 55:30 is subject to good deeds and bad deeds and sin and all of that and suffering. But you, the consciousness, from that standpoint, from the two-year standpoint, you are like the sky, not affected by it. Gaurapada goes on to say, again, glorious language, he says, he's got, remember, he's talking about you. Adi Buddha prakritya sarve dharma sunischita. He says, Adi Buddha prakritya, by your very nature,
• 55:30 - 56:00 look at the word he uses, you are eternally Buddhas. Each of us, we are Buddha. How? You are this consciousness ever blazing forth, ever revealed. Shankaracharya says, like the sun, continuously revealing itself and revealing everything else. You are that consciousness,
• 56:00 - 56:30 continuously revealing yourself and revealing everything else. You don't have to become Brahman. Somebody thinks that, oh, by Vedanta, I'll have to, somehow I will merge into Brahman, 50% merger, 75%, 80%, 100%, like corporate takeover, Brahman takeover. Not like that. You are Brahman. Always were. Adi, what a beautiful term, Adi Buddha. The original Buddha. Who is the original Buddha? You. Ever the Buddha.
• 56:30 - 57:00 I have to realize that, right? Even that one, that anxiety we'll have, okay, at that point, I am the Adi Buddha, fine. But as long as I don't realize it, because Vedanta keeps telling me, it's drilled into us. You have to become enlightened. You have to get, what is enlightenment? Self-knowledge, Brahma Jnana. Gaurapada goes even, see, he's radical. He says, no, no, no, you are ever enlightened. You are ever enlightened. Nothing has ever touched you.
• 57:00 - 57:30 This whole thing is your own game, your own entertainment. How am I ever enlightened? That's too much rhetoric. You're promising too much. You are. Do you not, you see, what is enlightenment? Self- knowledge. Aham Brahmasmi, I am Brahman. I am that consciousness. Are you aware of yourself? I am. Anybody who says I'm not aware of myself is a zombie. You are aware of yourself. I am aware of, we always have been aware of ourselves.
• 57:30 - 58:00 That I exist, I am. Now the problem is, yeah, I know that I exist, I am. But this is not, this is not self-knowledge. This is not Atma Jnana. Why not? Because this I am-ness is surrounded by so much suffering. This is the source of all problem. How is this any good to me? I am old and I am diseased and I have mortgages and I have the IRS after me.
• 58:00 - 58:30 I have and people don't, I am not liked by people. I am lonely. So how is this I am doing any good? What Gaurapada said, you are attaching the I am, you're limiting it with so many adjuncts. That, those things you attach to that I am, they are all appearances in your I am-ness. They are there, they change and they disappear. They are not permanently connected to you.
• 58:30 - 59:00 Who is permanently old? Nobody. Nobody is permanently young either. That's the body. I am in my consciousness, all these things appear and change. Can you keep the pure I am consciousness? Let the others come and go, don't hold on to them. If they come, welcome, very good. If they stay, you're welcome to stay. When they go, goodbye, nice seeing you. Whatever, youth, old age, life, death, plenty and prosperity and poverty, success and failure,
• 59:00 - 59:30 welcome, welcome to stay. When they go, goodbye, nice meeting you. They will come, they will stay and they will disappear. Remember, when they come, they are not really there, that's you. When they stay and appear before you and try to scare you, make faces at you, they are not anything apart from you, that's you. You the consciousness I mean, with that name and form. And when they go, nothing is really gone.
• 59:30 - 60:00 Neither the good, nor the bad, nothing is really gone. You are still there. So this is what he says, Adi Buddha, Shankaracharya explains, ever shining forth like the sun. All you have to do is just note it. Yes, it is so. And then be happy. Like the song, happy song or something. Another term he uses, one after another, this is the 91st verse, 92nd verse, 93rd verse, 94th verse I think,
• 60:00 - 60:30 93rd verse he says, Adi Shanta Yanutpanna, very beautiful, the unborn and originally eternally at peace, eternally serene, unborn. Who's that? Sounds really cool. That's you. Eternally at peace and the unborn. You have never come into existence. You are existence itself. You are never born as a thing.
• 60:30 - 61:00 The clay, though it appears like that, the clay never really becomes something new called a pot. At one phase it looks like a pot, it is used like a pot and called a pot. Still remains clay. You still remain as pure consciousness eternally. Earlier you were, now you are and later on also you will be. Limitless. See even when we say eternal, earlier, now, later,
• 61:00 - 61:30 we are acknowledging the presence of time. It's a tensed word, tensed not in the sense of tension and anxiety, tensed in the sense of past tense, present tense and future tense. Because we have to use language, we have to use these words. But actually consciousness is not within time. Time is experienced by consciousness. In that sense consciousness, you transcend time. You transcend space. Where will I be pure consciousness? That where, here and there, that is also within your awareness.
• 61:30 - 62:00 You experience space. Space doesn't experience you. Object, which one is pure consciousness? This one or that one or something else? All objects are experienced in pure consciousness. Pure consciousness is not an object. So these are all things which follow from saying that you are like the sky. Look at the words he used. Akasha vadgena, know yourself to be like the sky. Adi buddhaha, you know yourself to be the original Buddha.
• 62:00 - 62:30 Of course the scholars will say, aha, Buddhist influence. Adi buddha, you know yourself to be the original Buddha. Adi shantaha, know yourself to be serene without origin. Your serenity and calmness did not begin. It does not begin after Vedanta class. It does not begin after meditation. It does not begin after your psychotherapy session.
• 62:30 - 63:00 Your serenity always is there. Right now it is there. In the midst of the greatest turmoil, in the midst of the greatest storm in your life, that consciousness, unchanging consciousness, because it is there you are able to experience that storm. Because it is there you are able to experience all of this. The good, the bad, the ugly, everything comes because you are that serene consciousness.
• 63:00 - 63:30 So this brings us to an end of a journey which we started a few months ago. The four talks and the four chapters of the Mandukya Karika. And I haven't even scratched the surface of the treasures that lie in that text. It's a very radical text of non-dualism. After this we'll have a short Q&A session. But first let me do a peace chant. I pray to Sri Ramakrishna, the Holy Mother and Swami Vivekananda,
• 63:30 - 64:00 that which we have studied in these four chapters and which we shall keep on studying throughout our lives. Let it become a reality in our lives. It is a reality. Gaudapada would say, wait, it's a reality. It's a reality. That is true. Let us notice and acknowledge that reality. We need the blessings of the Lord for that. Om Shanti Shanti Shanti Hari Om Tat Sat Sri Ramakrishna Arpana Mastu