Dasha Mula Tattva 3 – Understanding the necessity and focus of Vedic knowledge

So, today we continue our discussion on the Simul Tattva. This is the Sutra.

So, this was the first one, which was describing the 10 tattvas. Then we did not discuss the, we discussed the first of the tattvas, that is Shastra. But we did not discuss the Sanskrit for that, because I wanted to lay down the conceptual framework.

So, this is a long, long text. So, let us recite it partially. Svatah Siddho Vedo Haridayita Vedah Pravritti Taha Pramanam Sat Pratam Pramiti Vishayan Tannava Vidhan Tatha Pratyakshati Pramiti Sahitam Sadhayatinah Nayantis Tarkakhya Pravishati Tatha Shaktirahita So, the traditional way of translating is called Anvay.

What Srila Prabhupada does is, give us a word to word translation, where he follows the sequence of the Sanskrit words. So, for example, Dehino Sunitha Dehe Kaumaram Yamanam Jaram If we have that verse, Srila Prabhupada will explain first the word Dehino, then Asmi, Yatha, Dehe. So, that gives us the word to word translations in the same sequence.

However, different languages have different rules for structuring sentences. So, Anvaya is not just a word to word translation. Anvaya is the translation and the rearrangement of the words in a sequence that makes sense in the translated language.

So, here what we have in this translation is, so, it is the Anvaya given over here. So, basically the words are explained in such a way that if we read the word to word translation which is given here, more or less we will be able to make the sense of what is being said over here. So, Vedaha refers to the Vedas.

Satpraptam, so, you will see now the words where are there. Vedas is here and Satpraptam. So, how are the Vedas received? Through the saints, Satpraptam.

Then Pravrdhita, since it is received by the saints, Prapta is received, Sat is by the saints. So, it is received by the saints and who are those saints headed by? Pravrdhita, headed by Haridaita. All these people are Haridaita, they are dear to Lord Hari.

They have received the mercy of Lord Hari. Among them Vedaha. Veda is one of the names of Brahmaji.

Na, and in this way we have got it in the parampara. Our Na is plural pronoun for us. Satahasiddha, then now come to the first word.

So, here how are the Vedas received? In parampara. And they are Satahasiddha, they are self-evident. Pramana, this is the evidence.

Sadhyati, and this Pramana, it establishes. So, the book which the Bhaktivinoda Thakura is writing is Dasamool Tattva. Now, how is he determining the Dasamool Tattva? He is saying from this Veda, from this first Pramana, the remaining nine Tattva will be determined.

So, this is his Navavidhan, the remaining nine kinds of Pramanas that are Pramitivishayan. So, Pramana. So, Pramana is that by which we know.

So, Pramana, Pramitivishayan means the object which is to be known. So, that object is to be known through this particular Pramana, Pramitivishayan. Now, is it to be known only by Shabda? No.

Along with Shabda, Pramiti. Pramiti is other subject matters. So, what are they? Pratyakshaadi.

Pratyakshaadi means Pratyakshaanuman. These are the various Pramanas. We can also use them also, headed by the Tatha.

In this way, so the subject matter is established by Shabda, but along with that other Pramanas can also be used. But, he is immediately putting a qualification about the Yukti. Yukti is reasoning.

Tarkakhya. Tarka is logic and counter logic. Tarkakhya, argument and counter argument.

Shaktirahita. Rahita means without. Shaktirahita means it does not have any power.

It does not have any potency. Navapravishati. It cannot comprehend.

Which, what? That which is inconceivable. That is implicit over here. So, in this way, what is the verse saying? That the Vedas are received in Parampara, by those who have received the Lord's mercy and headed by Brahmaji.

And these Vedas are self-evident truths. And by these Vedas, the remaining nine Pramanas can be known. And the truths which are taught herein, they are understood not just by Vedas, but also by the other means of acquiring knowledge, such as Pratyakshaanuman.

But, if one uses Pratyakshaanuman independently, then they have no potency to penetrate, to perceive the transcendental truth. So, here, let's go over these points one by one. We have discussed several of these points, but I will go over in analytical framework here.

You remember we discussed the principle of revelation. Now, God has provided us for most of our necessities. We need heat, we need air, we need water, that is provided.

Similarly, we need knowledge for living. So, that knowledge is also necessity. So, that knowledge will also be provided by God.

And how does he provide it? He provides it in a disciplic succession. If we see, this concept of disciplic succession is not just unique to the Vedic tradition. It is more or less, maybe it may not be so prominent, but it is there in every tradition.

Even in the Christianity, in the Catholic tradition, they have Jesus, he had the twelve primary disciples called the Apostles. And then they have what is called an apostolic tradition of succession. So, the present day popes and bishops, they are considered to be, they are connected in a line to the Apostles who are connected to Jesus.

So, the idea of spiritual knowledge being transmitted in the tradition is more or less universal. This is being talked about here. This knowledge is received and it is received first by Brahmaji.

So, Brahma is usually considered to be the husband of Saraswati Devi, who is the Goddess of Learning. So, the Lord of Learning has also learned from someone else. And that is the Supreme Lord Hari.

And through him we are having the parampara. So, there are different paramparas here. Bhaktivinoda Thakur is talking about the Gaudiya Vaishnava Parampara.

He is establishing the Gaudiya Vaishnava Siddhanta over here. He talks about this parampara. And it is Satahara Siddho.

Now, what does this Satahara Siddho, self-evident mean? Words have different functions. The words can be descriptive, prescriptive and transformative. Words can be descriptive, means, Okay, so if I go to a doctor and the doctor tells me, Okay, you have high blood pressure.

That is descriptive. The doctor is describing an event, or describing a condition. Words can also be prescriptive.

Prescriptive means, Okay, you must not take these, these foods. And you should take these, these medicines. That is prescriptive.

But along with that, words can also be transformative. If the doctor says, Doctor finds that, I am just in the middle of a medical breakdown, and unless I am operated within the next three hours, I may have a heart attack and die. He says, you are admitted to the hospital.

And the doctor says that, that is not just prescriptive or descriptive, that is transformative. And whether words have a, what is the transformation? I was free in going around here and there, but now suddenly I am admitted in the hospital. So, now whether words have transformative potency or not, that depends on who is uttering the words.

Suppose a cricket match is going on, and the home team is being beaten, beaten, by some very good batsman, and he is just smashing the ballers of the home team all around. And the spectators are saying, Out! Out! Out! The spectator is saying, Out! He is not going to do anything. But the umpire raises his hand and says, Out! So, the umpire is saying, Out! The batsman has to go out.

So, the transformative potency of words depends on who speaks those words. So, if a person with authority speaks those words, now I go and say something to someone, you are under arrest. That has no potency.

But if an authorised police person comes and says, you are under arrest, then that person is arrested. So, the transformative potency of words is present when it is spoken by a person in authority. Just as the potency of words depends on the speaker of those words, in this example.

Similarly, Swataha Siddho means that the person who knows everything, the person who is omniscient, when that person speaks it, that is naturally true. So, the self-evident, now the self-evident may not always be evident to us. The self-evident may not always be evident to the self.

What does that mean? This is precisely the example that, this is precisely the point that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu makes in his discussion with Prakashnan Saraswati. He says, he makes a similar point with Sarovartacharya also. The essential point he makes is that the Vedas are like the sun.

But your explanation is like a cloud covering the sun. So, what does it mean? The sun is self-evident. But if the clouds are there, the clouds won't cover the sun, but the clouds cover my perception of the sun.

Similarly, the import of the Vedas is self-evident. But if I am conditioned, if the cloud of conditionings is obscuring my intelligence, then the self-evident may not be evident to the self. So, Srila Prabhupada would say that there is no need to interpret scripture.

It's self-evident. But then yet Srila Prabhupada gives us purports. If it is self-evident, why does he have to give the purports? His purports are not really revealing the sun to us.

They are removing the cloud that is obstructing our perception of the sun. So, Sataha Siddho means the words have their own authority inherently because they come from a supremely authority resource. Sataha Siddho.

And moving forward, Pramana Sat Praptam. So, let's discuss this point about Haridaya Veda Pravrata Sat Praptam. It is received by the saints.

The disciplic succession is you need to understand, it is not just a chain of institutional affiliation. It is a chain of personal devotion. It is a chain, it is not that this person was initiated by this person, this record is in this mata.

And that's how the parampara comes. Yes, institutional affiliation is important. But that is not what makes the parampara alive and important.

The parampara is essentially a chain of hearts. It is a chain of hearts. So, when the spiritual master lives a life of selfless love, a life of lofty principles, the disciple becomes inspired by those principles and wants to similarly live according to those principles.

And that principle of selfless devotion that the spiritual master has embodied and personified, that is what is transmitted by the spiritual master to the disciple. And that is how the message goes on. And that is how the parampara continues.

Now, we look at pramanam. Pramanam, as you know, is the authoritative way of acquiring knowledge. So, you say, it is anuman is wrong.

Anuman praman is not wrong. As soon as we use the word praman, praman is an authoritative way of acquiring knowledge. So, sometimes we say prateksha praman and anuman praman are not wrong.

Prateksha is wrong, anuman is wrong. Praman itself means, usually it means a proper way of acquiring knowledge. Sometimes words may also be used in a non-technical sense.

That will vary. Just like, suppose, just like, say, a scientist is in a lab. And a scientist tells the assistant, we have run out of energy.

There, the scientist is referring to the battery is discharged or the power supply is no longer giving the energy or whatever. But if that same scientist comes home and then tells his wife, I have no energy now. He is not using the word energy there in a scientific sense.

He is using it in a general sense to refer to that I am exhausted now. So, words can have a technical sense as well as a general sense. And when I said that word praman usually means authoritative source of knowledge.

That is a technical sense. Prateksha praman means, prateksha is also used in a way to acquire valid knowledge. So, pramanam.

Now he says, pramitivishayan. Pramitivishayan is the subjects which are to be known. Jnanam yeyam jnanagamyam hrdi sarvasya veshthita In the 13th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna states, Jnanam geyam jnanagamyam.

He says, jnan, it means knowledge. Geya is the object of knowledge. Jnanagamyam, that is the goal of knowledge.

So, there is knowledge, there is object of knowledge and there is a goal of knowledge. So, for example, say a student is studying. So, the student is studying, is acquiring knowledge.

And say the student is studying mechanical engineering. So, the object of knowledge is mechanical engineering. But the goal of knowledge may well be, the student wants to go to America.

The student wants to have a lot of, earn a lot of money. So, the goal of knowledge may be different. So, jnanam geyam jnanagamyam.

When Krishna says in the 13th chapter, he says that actually the transcendentalist perceives that knowledge, the goal of knowledge, the subject of knowledge and the goal of knowledge. All three are ultimately the absolute truth. So, here we initially may analyse.

Okay, this is one subject, this is another subject, this is another subject. Which is fine for analytical purpose. But for synthetic purpose we need to recognise that ultimately all subjects are manifestations of Krishna.

All subjects are manifestations of the absolute truth. Whatever we study, ultimately we are studying Krishna's energy. And because we are studying Krishna's energy, so we are actually studying Krishna.

And that is why Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, he would say that sthavara jangam na daki, dekhi dara murti, sarvatraha nija ishta devas murti. So, he would not see sthavara jangam, moving on moving things. He would see sarvatraha nija ishta devas murti.

He would see his ishta dev, his beloved lord everywhere. So, the subject which we are going to discuss will be described over here. And here he is focussing on what? The process of knowledge involves these two things usually.

Analysis and synthesis. Analysis means breaking things down into their components. Synthesis means bringing things together as coherent ones.

Something is complicated. So, for example, if you want to eat a watermelon. If I just take the watermelon and try to put it in my mouth, it will not fit in.

So, we cut the watermelon into small small pieces which are edible. So, cutting down, so for example, when we observe the world, we see so much information around here. Even in this room, if I want, I can just take one object and focus on it.

If I see, okay, this AC is here. Now, what is this kind of AC? I also have AC in my room. Is it the same quality AC or is this better? This looks like a different company.

I think the size is also bigger. This colour looks good. It matches over here.

But then this design, it's not as good as in my room. I can just go on a whole chain of thoughts. Somebody, if they want, they can just do a PhD on AC design.

Isn't it? So, we can go into any branch of knowledge and we can go deep into it. So, normally, whenever we observe the world, we focus on certain things. Either intentionally or subconsciously, unintentionally.

And that is how, so what is the meaning of focus? This is important, this is not important. That means we are accepting certain information, rejecting some information. This itself is a very basic classification.

I am talking about the process of knowledge acquisition involving some analysis. So, for the sake of analysis, the basic level of analysis is we focus on certain information, we neglect certain information. While we are observing.

But even after we have taken certain information, then we often try to place that information in some conceptual category. For example, if you meet someone, now if you are in a devotee circle, okay, this devotee is from this temple. This devotee is from this temple.

Or this devotee is from this counselling group. This devotee is from this counselling group. This devotee is this guru's disciple.

This devotee is that guru's disciple. And for our functional purposes, their conceptual categories are good. At the same time, if we only analyse, we don't synthesise, then our perception becomes fragmented.

We also need to be able to, if we just reduce people to their certain qualities. Oh, this person is intellectual. This person is lazy.

This person is sentimental. Yes, people may have these attributes, but they have other attributes also. So here, Navavidhan.

So what Dr. Thakur is doing here is, he is analysing. So the subject matter of the Vedas, which is to be studied, which is to be understood, he is analysing it into nine categories. So this is analysis.

And then we will see towards the end, how all these nine items can also be synthesised together. Tatha pratyaksha di pramiti sahitam. So now, pratyaksha di pramiti sahitam.

It's important to know that pratyaksha and Hanuman also have their validity. For example, when Hanuman is going out, is told by Lord Ram to search for Sita. Now as Hanuman, all the Vanaras are told.

Now at that time, Ram doesn't act as God and say, I'll tell you where Sita is. He said, go and search. Now search means what? Use pratyaksha pramana.

There is no shabda available over there. So he has to use pratyaksha pramana. And pratyaksha is, from the operational point of view in this world, it is an important pramana.

Suppose somebody goes late for Mangal Aarti. And then the person in charge asks, why are you late? He says, I was not late. What do you mean? You are relying on pratyaksha.

Pratyaksha is on the line. This is ridiculous, if somebody says like that. So, for practical purposes, pratyaksha is important.

And when it comes to observing this world, even in the material world, pratyaksha is important. But even science does not consider pratyaksha to be all-important. If you consider the history of science, there has been, there have been two broad classes of, schools of thought within science.

One is called empiricism and the other is called rationalism. Now empiricism means, we focus on what is empirically observable. So empiricism focusses on pratyaksha pramana.

Whereas rationalism focusses on anumantra, reasoning. And usually the scientific method is, we observe and then we try to reason. We try to find out using reason, a pattern in the observation.

So Newton observed fruits falling and then he tried to find out the reason. What is the reasoning? The reasoning is, that there is a principle of gravity. And then with that reasoning, and further pratyaksha can be done, experiments again pratyaksha, try to confirm it.

But what can happen, is that sometimes pratyaksha and anumantra, empiricism and rationalism, can go in opposite directions. And that, that conflict between rational, empiricism and rationalism, has manifested in modern science, in the conflict between, broadly speaking, the conflict between general relativity and quantum physics. General relativity begins with the premise, that there are physical objects.

And this is a physical object, this really exists. Whereas quantum physics, begins with the premise, that the fundamental existence is waves. And it says that actually, what we see here, this is just something which is, a manifestation that results, because of the collapse of the, of the quantum wave functions.

I am not going to go into technicalities over here. But the point is, that even within science, which is to be given primacy, pratyaksha or anumantra, that is disputed. So, the problem is not to rely on pratyaksha, but the problem is to rely exclusively on pratyaksha.

The problem is to rely, on pratyaksha as the final authority. Pratyaksha is also a useful authority. In fact, when most of the time, when we talk about realisation, what do we mean by realisation? Realisation, I have a whole class on this, but briefly, realisation essentially means, that there is knowledge which comes from shabda.

There are experiences that we have with pratyaksha. So, when we do anuman, to harmonise our pratyaksha with shabda, then we get realisation. When we do anuman, to harmonise our pratyaksha, with shabda, then we get realisation.

So, for example, I had gone to America. I was in Ohio State University. I was giving a class, there were many young boys and girls there.

I spoke on, it was a vegetarian society, so I spoke on regulating our mental diet. I spoke about how if we have negative stimuli coming in, then it can depress us so much, that we may even become suicidal. And after that class, one young, handsome looking, well built boy came, and he told me, just before this class, I was thinking of committing suicide.

And he said, when you told me, when you explained how the mind is, what is filled with negativity, I understood that, that actually, the desire for committing suicide is not my desire, it is my mind's desire. So, thank you. Now, the point which I, if you look at first observation, he was young, he was in a good university, he had a bright career in front of him, most people would think that, oh, he must be enjoying life.

But, we hear from scripture, that in a materialistic society, we hear from Guru Sadhu Shastra, in a materialistic society, there is lot of stress, there is lot of mental problems, but we, if we just look and watch on TV, and we see Hollywood, we see Bollywood, we see college culture, we say, oh, people are enjoying, they are boys and girls, they are having fun, I have to follow so many rules and regulations, I have to do so much enjoyment, so, this way, if we look at Pratyaksha, if we just go to college, and just fully look at here, and see boys and girls enjoying, or seeming to enjoy, then what happens, that Pratyaksha is going against our Shabda. And if we rely on that Pratyaksha, rather than getting realisation, we lose wisdom. That Pratyaksha is misleading.

But, when, we, even within the course of life, we will encounter situations, encounter events, which confirm what Shabda is telling. But at that time, we have to make the link. That means, no matter how young, handsome, powerful, intelligent, whatever you may be, if your mind is troubling you, you will be miserable.

The mind is our greatest enemy. The mind is the cause of our greatest misery. So, this is a spiritual teaching for us.

But we may think, oh, these people are happy. But then if we connect, so, what are we doing? We connect, what we have heard from Shabda, with what we are inferring from, what we are observing through Pratyaksha. So, the Anuman, the reasoning that we do, to harmonise Pratyaksha with Shabda, that brings realisation.

So, if we are not able to do this reasoning, then we may hear a lot of wisdom, but that wisdom will come in and go out. It will not transform into realisation. So, Pratyaksha, now Krishna uses the word, Pratyaksha Vagamam Dharmyam.

Su-sukham kartumam. 9.2 in the Bhagavad Gita he says, Pratyaksha Vagamam Dharmyam. And this knowledge is confirmed, is realised by direct experience.

So, as we move onwards, we will experience, from without and from within. We will experience the reality of Krishna's existence, the reality of Krishna's love, and in that way, we will move onwards. So, Pratyaksha can sometimes confirm Shabda, and we may say sometimes Pratyaksha can contradict Shabda.

No, Pratyaksha does not contradict Shabda. When we see people enjoying, we should understand that, this is the power of Maya. That actually, although these people are not enjoying, because of Maya, they are thinking that they are enjoying.

So, maya-sukham, maya-sukha-bharam, udvahato mi-mudhan. So, it is not happiness, it is a burden, but they are thinking that they are happy. So, we need to connect, harmonise the Pratyaksha that we are getting, with the appropriate section of Shabda.

So, for example, Pingala, you know, when she was, she was a prostitute, and she was waiting for a customer all night. Actually, she was not looking for a customer. She was looking for a lover.

The word that she uses is kantaha. So, she was not just looking for money, she was hoping that some man will come, and he will offer me love. She was looking, when will I get a kantaha, when will I get a lover.

And she was waiting, she was going in her, coming out of her house, going in her cottage, coming out, and anxiously trying to attract some people. But, nobody came. And then, as she was getting dejected, at that time itself, she got a realisation.

By Lord Vishnu's mercy, she got a realisation. She says that, kenapi, because of some past punya that I have done, because of that, see, frustration, will lead, frustration in her case, led to renunciation. Many times, in our case, frustration leads to greater frustration.

If I don't get something, I want it, I don't get it, I want it, I don't get it, in that, our mind becomes like a black hole into which we sink. So, in her case, frustration leads to realisation. How did that happen? Because she connected.

She was in a culture where even she had her spiritual wisdom at some time or the other. And she connected it over there. So, pratyaksha and anuman, when we use them in harmonising with shabda, we get realisation.

Now, the next point he makes is, na yuktis tarka khya pravishati ta shakti rahita But, shakti rahita, they are without the power to pravishati, to enter into the transcendental realm. Why is that? Because, that which is transcendental is actually not perceivable with our senses. So, did I last time show this PPT of how to deal with scriptural knowledge being divided into three circles? No.

This is a PowerPoint presentation I usually give to college students about the relationship between science and spirituality. Yeah. So, here you will see, but in the broad body of scriptural wisdom, you can divide it into these three categories.

If you consider scriptural wisdom to be a broad circle, we have to charge this. So, if you consider scriptural wisdom to be like a broad circle, then within that, we have one circle, one circle one circle. we have one sector that scriptural knowledge agrees with, we have some scriptural knowledge that agrees with science.

There is some scriptural knowledge that disagrees with science. And there is some scriptural knowledge, in fact, a large part of scriptural knowledge is that which contradicts science, sorry, that which not, large part is that which transcends science. So, imagine a big circle, one part that is agrees with science, the other part is contradict science, but a big part is that which transcends science.

So, now, transcend science means that is there anything that is beyond the scope of science to know? Yes, there is a lot of knowledge about which science has nothing to say. Now, somebody may say how can, is it visible now, this agrees with science, contradict science and transcend science, three sections of the scriptural knowledge. So, scriptural knowledge, our primary focus is that which transcends science.

Our primary focus is on what? We study scripture, we are not studying scripture to how to cure my stomach ache. Now, for that I can go to allopathic doctor also, I can go to Ayurvedic doctor, but that is not the primary thing for which I have come to scripture. I have not come to scripture to learn about cosmology, that is also there in scripture and I can, but I have come to scripture primarily to learn how to become a better human being.

So, in a broad way I put it, science makes things better, spirituality makes people better. Science cannot transform people, when a person is short tempered, there is nothing that science can do, you take a medicine, your anger will go away, there is no medicine like that. Some kind of counselling might be there, but that is not hard science, that is soft science they call it.

And it also involves much that is beyond the scope of science. So, science can make things better, spirituality makes people better. So, they have largely non-intersecting scope, there is some intersection, but our primary focus is not on the intersecting area.

Our primary focus is on the area that goes beyond, the area that is beyond science. So, here this is Nobel laureate Arvind Schrodinger, Arvind Schrodinger, what does he say? I am very astonished that the scientific feature of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us.

It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight. It knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.

So, this is not a spiritualist who is against science, bashing science. This is a scientist who is a Nobel laureate scientist who is speaking this. Now, what does it mean science cannot say anything about red and blue? If you are making a photoshop design, you say you are designing a poster.

At that time, with science, using a computer you can determine precisely, this is the percentage of red, this is the percentage of blue, this is the percentage of green, but then you have to judge, is this beautiful? The computer cannot judge that. You need to judge that. So, there is a subjective experience of red and blue, that science cannot do.

So, there is much, this is a big subject. Broadly speaking, what science cannot tell us? Science cannot tell us about origin, value and purpose. Where we came from, ultimately science cannot tell us that.

Value, value means what is right, what is wrong. Science can tell a person that if I put arsenic in my grandmother's breakfast, I can get my estate tomorrow itself. But science cannot tell that person whether putting arsenic is right or wrong.

For that, that knowledge has to be from somewhere else. So, Hitler's Germany was at that time scientifically among the most developed countries in the world. And what did the scientists do at that time? They used, they developed gas chambers to kill the Jews.

The Holocaust was actually done in quite a scientific way. Using gas chambers to kill people, that was scientifically advanced way of killing. Priorly in French, when the French Revolution happened, at that time people used gulleters.

There are physical ways of killing people, it takes more time. You just put people in a chamber and send gas over there, everybody will die quickly. So, the point which I am making is science cannot tell us about values, what is right, what is wrong.

We are not saying here that scientists don't have values. This is an important point to recognise. The criticism is not of scientists in general, nor is the criticism of science per se.

To say that the President of America is not the king of the world, it's not an insult to the President of America. It's just a statement of fact. And if the President of America takes it as an insult, that is his problem.

He was imagining that I am the king and that is his imagination, that is not the reality. President of America is a powerful person. And we accept he is powerful, but he is not the king of the world.

Similarly, science is a very powerful tool for acquiring knowledge. And we accept its validity. But science is not an absolute source of knowledge about everything.

So, when science makes claims about things which are beyond the scope of science, then we have to point it out. So, what we are talking about here is that is there something beyond the scope of science? Yes, these things are origin, value, purpose. Origin is where did I come from, value, what is right, what is wrong, what am I to do, what should I not do? And purpose, why am I existing? There is something which science has no answer for.

So, origin, value and purpose are things which we learn, for learning which we need to go to some other sources. So, what the point which we are discussing here is that Pratyakshan Anuman in Bhaktivinoda Thakura's analysis, it does not have jurisdiction to understand that which is achintya, that is transcendental. It does not have the jurisdiction.

So, all that we are saying right now is science has its jurisdiction and there are things beyond scientific jurisdiction. And for those we require an alternative source of knowledge. Even in day to day experience, we use different sources for acquiring knowledge.

There may be a brain surgeon who can use the latest neural probes for understanding whatever cognitive disorders that a person might be having. But if that new brain surgeon comes home and his wife is upset with him, now when we tell her, let me do a brain scan to find out why you are upset. She will tell him, you go and scan where your brain is.

You don't have any brain at all left. Isn't it? So, there he is to talk with her, find out what is upsetting her. So, even in day to day life, we understand that there are different modes for acquiring, there are different methods for acquiring knowledge in different fields.

So, for example, if I take a fishing net, which has say a hole of 1 inch by 1 or 5 inch by 5 inch, 3 inch by 3 inch, whatever, then even if I keep that hole, even if I keep that fishing net in a lake that is filled with fish, it will not catch any fish that is smaller than 3 inches. Why? Because that is a limitation of that fishing net. Similarly, science looks for material knowledge.

That's why science cannot acquire spiritual knowledge. So, for such subjects, for spiritual subjects, the source of knowledge is scripture. Now, we for example, may use in our Gita course or in introductory courses, we may talk about how, okay, from this, the scientists believe in God and from this reasoning, we can understand God exists.

So, yes, that is inference. Science itself does not tell us that. That is the opinion of eminent scientists and that is derived from scientific observations.

But the existence of God is not a scientific subject. By scientific, I am talking about the way science is defined in the mainstream community. Now, Prabhupada would say Krishna consciousness is also science.

Now, when he is talking about that, he is not talking about the science as, say, you can do some, you have some mathematical equations and we have some formulas where we have testable things. He is not talking about it in that sense. He is talking about in general sense that it is reasonable, it is repeatable, it is predictable, it is verifiable.

So, in that general sense, he is using the word Krishna consciousness of science. But the subject of God is, as we say, Kunti Maharani says that she is Adhokshaja. Adhokshaja.

So, there are many words for the Supreme Lord. Adhokshaja means he is beyond the senses. What is the word for him that he is beyond the mind also? He is beyond the senses, Adhokshaja.

He is beyond the mind, Achintya. Isn't it? We just discussed it. Vishikesha is the master of the senses.

So, Adhokshaja and then Achintya. In Gajendra's prayer, he says that, O Lord, you are beyond the movements of the senses, the mind and even of consciousness. What he means by that is you are beyond the unbeautified consciousness.

So, for such knowledge, we require scripture. Now, in the Bhagavad Gita in 13th chapter, 13th chapter is the toughest chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. Very technical.

And there Krishna talks about Purusha, Prakrti, Jnana, Jnana, Kshetra, Kshetra, Jnana. And in the 13th chapter, after talking about Kshetra, Kshetra, Jnana, Jnana, Jnana, Purusha, Prakrti. We are talking about these six subjects.

Then he gives a summary. He says, how can you acquire knowledge? In 13.25, he says that some people acquire knowledge using Sankhya. So, some use Sankhya, some use Karma.

Different people use different modes of acquiring knowledge. But in 13.26, he recommends, He says, He says, others, They don't know anything about this. They hear from others.

Upasate means they worship. They go beyond. They go beyond what? Beyond the cycle of birth and death.

How? They are devoted to hearing. Hearing has the potency to reshape our conceptual world. Hearing has the potency to reshape our conceptual world.

See, all of us have, It's like, if I were going to some new place, we have a map. Which we use to go to that place. We may use a GPS now.

But we have some sort of map which we use to go to the world. So, like that, we have a conceptual map inside us. By which, okay, this goes this way, this goes this way, this goes this way.

So, we have the inner territory and that is reshaped by hearing. The difference between Bhakti Yoga, which centres on hearing, as compared to Karma Yoga, Gyan Yoga, Ashram Yoga is that, in all the Yogas, we need to reshape our inner world. The essence of Yoga is connection with the Absolute Truth.

That is what Yoga means. Now that, right now, we are disconnected. Our consciousness is disconnected from the Absolute Truth.

And we want to connect to the Absolute Truth. And this connection is not physical. It's not that we have to physically touch Krishna's deity or something like that.

The reconnection with Krishna is actually conceptual. In our conceptions, we need to understand that I am a part of Krishna. So, you know, we are a part of Krishna.

A and part. But currently, we are apart from Krishna. We are apart, but we are apart now.

So, we have gone apart from Krishna. We have to become apart again. Not become, we are always apart, but we have to realise, we have to act like we are a part of Krishna.

This connection is conceptual. Our conceptions have to be purified by which we can connect with Him. So, in the other Yogas, also the same purpose is there.

But the other Yogas rely on our own strength. My own intellectual prowess. My own Yogic meditation, austerity capacity.

My own detachment in Karma Yoga. Whereas, in Bhakti Yoga, when we hear from others, then their guidance, their wisdom, their insights flow into us. And thus, hearing reshapes our conceptual world.

It reshapes it most efficiently. That's why Krishna talks in one verse in 13.25, talks about three processes. And just for the process of hearing, He devotes one verse full.

So, although the 13th chapter is considered to be a chapter for Jnana, Jnana is. But there also Krishna says, gives special update on hearing. So, hearing reshapes our conceptual world most efficiently.

And that is the primary way through which scriptural knowledge is acquired. I'll conclude with one last point about scriptural knowledge. There is a written tradition and there is an oral tradition.

We know 5000 years ago, Vyasadeva wrote the scriptures down. And at that time, the Vedas came into written form. But even before that, the Vedas were there and they were in oral form.

Now, we may say that people in the past were Shruti Dharam. Now, it is not that everyone at that time necessarily was Shruti Dharam. People had that capacity.

It is not that people who were of Shudra nature had to be Shruti Dharam to remember everything. The point is that in the past, knowledge was primarily acquired through hearing. And the scripture was preserved primarily by the oral tradition.

So, in the past, books were primarily written for scholars. Because common people, at that time the printing material was also not available. Once when Akbar came to meet Jugoswami, Akbar was very pleased with Jugoswami.

And Jugoswami, it is a long story. But essentially, Akbar asked Jugoswami, what can I do for you? What do you want? Jugoswami said, give me some paper. We did not have the paper of the kind which we had.

But basically, the leaf which you could write, the special kind of material which you can write, it was very rare at that time. So, that's what he asked for. So, at that time, books were not very easily available.

So, the books were primarily written by scholars for scholars. And the common people, their way of acquiring knowledge was primarily through hearing. And hearing, we will see also in our own lives, that yes, we do learn a lot by reading.

And it is important to read books. At the same time, we will learn much more by hearing. And by hearing, we can do a lot of hearing from different devotees.

But we have to find out which devotees we connect with, whose classes, whose way of thinking, whose way of explaining we connect with. And then, by that devotee's guidance, we reshape our inner world through hearing. So, the primary process in scripture, in scriptural assimilation, is hearing.

Books are also hearing. Books are sound put, spoken put in the book form, and then we are hearing. That is also important.

Along with that, hearing is also important in transmission of sound. Because it helps us to reshape our inner world with the assistance of those who have reshaped their inner world. And in that way, their potency helps in bringing about the inner change within us.

So, rahishakti rahita, without taking guidance from scripture, if we use Bhaktikshananuman, chakti rahita, it has no capacity to penetrate the transcendental realm. There is no capacity to give us any knowledge about what transcendental reality is. Albert Camus was a famous, a brilliant intellectual.

He was an existentialist philosopher. And he did a lot of study. And his conclusion was, life is meaningless.

Everything is meaningless, therefore the only meaningful question is whether to commit suicide today or tomorrow. It's tragic. So, what is the reason for such a thing? Because, philosophy means we are looking for deeper things.

But when I am looking for deeper things, if I am not guided by scripture, then I stand like flailing my arms in an ocean. And how long can I keep flailing my arms in an ocean? Where can I reach? It's just, you are lost. So, sometimes, when this movie PK had come up, at that time, I wrote a book, I gave some answers, I wrote a book also responding to it.

One of the points I made over there is, okay, atheists, sceptics of religion, they argue that this ritual is meaningless, this ritual is meaningless, this ritual doesn't make sense. But actually, if we take the atheistic world view, everything is meaningless. Isn't it? Life has no meaning.

I am just a bag of protoplasm that has suddenly come alive. I am flapping around for a few years. And then I will return to protoplasmic dust.

So, I have come from cosmic dust, I will return to cosmic dust. All of my life is meaningless. So, if according to your philosophy itself, everything is meaningless, then why are you complaining that our rituals are meaningless? If everything is meaningless, then why complain that these rituals are meaningless? So, basically, when we reject scripture, then we are just flailing around in an ocean of meaninglessness.

And all science is not atheistic. When atheistic science is there, that atheistic science is like finding small islets of meaning within an ocean of meaninglessness. Everything is meaningless, but this apple falls according to this rule.

Everything is meaningless, but electrons move according to this rule. So, we are finding islets of meaning and we are celebrating the finding of islets of meaning. But we insist that there is an ocean of meaninglessness all around.

Is it that we might be missing something? So, science has its validity. All of science is ultimately motivated by the search for meaning, search for order. So, when we look at deeper questions, that same intelligence, some people say that if you are rational, you will become scientific, if you are sentimental, you will become religious.

No, it is the same rational search for meaning which leads to the growth of science. That same rational search for meaning can also lead to the growth of spirituality. So, Einstein said that all the sciences, religions and arts, they come from the same tree.

They are fruits of the same tree. The root of the tree is the human search for knowledge. So, when we turn towards scripture, it is not, when we say the subject is Achyutam, it does not mean we are having blind faith.

Rather, it means we have open-mindedness. We are open-minded that there may be some reality beyond what is perceived by our senses. So, rather, when we study scripture and open ourselves to spiritual reality, we are actually being open-minded.

And atheists who say that this is all nonsense, they are actually having blind faith. What is the blind faith of atheists? The blind faith of atheists is that nothing exists beyond the physical realm. Nothing exists beyond the material realm.

So, what is the basis for saying that? This is not a scientific point that nothing exists beyond the material. That is a philosophical point. And that philosophical point has no substantiation, no rational substantiation.

So, when we study scripture, accepting the point that the transcendental realm is beyond logic and protection of the mind, that is recognition that this is a different branch of knowledge and therefore it will require a different process for acquiring knowledge. And when we choose the appropriate process, then we get the appropriate knowledge and we get it in a very deep and profound way. So, I will summarise.

I started by talking about, I talked about the concept of Anuvaya, where a verse is, translation is given in a semantic sequence, not just a linear sequence for understanding and we discussed about this particular verse. So, we discussed about how the Supreme Lord gives knowledge in parampara. He says we have various needs.

So, knowledge is also one of our needs and he gives it. Principle of parampara of some science, succession, universe and the world's spiritual traditions. And then we say that it is Sotaha Siddho.

That means words can be descriptive, prescriptive and transformative. They are transformative when they are spoken by an authoritative person. And because the Supreme Lord is the most authoritative person, the omniscient, so his words are in that sense self-evident truth.

And then we discussed about Pramanam. Praman, the words have technical and general meanings. So, Praman in the technical sense means that which is authoritative source of knowledge.

I will discuss the example of energy in a technical and general sense. So, we discussed ultimately the Jnana, Jnana, Jnana Gamya all are Krishna himself. So, knowledge involves analysis and synthesis.

So, here we do analysis. Okay, what are the subject of knowledge? That is divided into nine subjects. Navavidhaan, as was mentioned over here.

And we discussed here Pratekshaadi Pramiti Sahitam. So, Prateksha and Anuman are in the practical functioning. They are important.

They are not just important, they are necessary. They are indispensable for our practical living. So, problem is when we take them as the final authority.

So, even for knowing this world they are not the final authority. I talked about in the scientific history how there has been conflict between empiricism and rationalism. Between general relativity which begins with empiricism and quantum physics which begins with rationalism.

So, even for acquiring material knowledge Prateksha is not final or authoritative. Not to speak of that which is beyond. But we discussed even in spiritual knowledge while acquiring spiritual knowledge we can use Prateksha.

How? Realisation means that we use our Anuman to harmonise our Prateksha with Shabda. And then we discussed about how Tatha Shakti Rahita how Prateksha Anuman cannot diverge from scripture has no potency to give us spiritual knowledge. And that connection we discussed.

Is there something beyond science? I discussed the quote of Schrodinger that science cannot tell us about three things. What are they? Origin, values and purpose. And as Schrodinger says science sometimes tries to answer these questions.

But if the answers are so silly then we are not inclined to take them seriously. So, we are not disrespecting science. We are pointing out the jurisdiction of science.

Just as the president of America is not the king of the world. So, or just as a fishing net cannot catch fish smaller than size of its own. So, for acquiring spiritual knowledge there is a different method that is required.

And that method is hearing from scripture. So, script hearing changes our inner or conceptual world. Reshapes our conceptual world most efficiently.

So, we are disconnected from Krishna and we have been connected. That connection is not physical. It is conceptual.

And in the other processes we depend on our own prowess to bring about the connection. Whereas, while hearing we get the assistance we are empowered by those whose inner world is reshaped. And in that way we can efficiently reshape our world our inner world and become connected with Krishna.

And I concluded by talking about how when we say that something is achieved here something which is beyond inference and observation it is not blind faith. It is actually reasonable open-mindedness. And that there is something beyond the physical beyond the physical and the beyond the physical and mental ways of acquiring knowledge.

And atheists who reject this they are actually having blind faith in the non-existence of the spiritual. And their philosophy ultimately reduces down to looking for islets of meaning while drowning in an ocean of meaninglessness. Rather than that we turn towards scripture then we move out of this ocean of meaninglessness and attain the eternal land of supreme and sublime meaning.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions?