Dasha Mula Tattva 7 – Achintyabhedabheda is the most evolved understanding of Vedanta

So, thank you very much. Are there any questions? Hare Krishna So, we continue our discussion on the Dashamodha Tattva So, in the previous text we discussed first about the energies of Lord Hari the Paraprakriti the Parashakti Mayashakti and Jivashakti and then we discussed the Parashakti then we discussed the Sandhini, Sambhud and the Ladhini Shaktis and in this Tattva Bhatnanath Thakur focusses on another aspect that is a further description of the Jivashakti So, Swillingaha Swillingaha Rudhagane Ivachit Anavo Jivanichayaha Hare Surya Saiva Prathah Apitu Tadbhed Vishayaha Vashemaya Yasya Prakriti Patil Eveshwara Iha Sajeeva Muktopi Prakriti Vashayogyaha Swagunataha Swillinga Rudhagane Swillinga is spark Agni is a blazing fire Just as from a blazing fire sparks may fall out similarly Ivachit Anavo Jivanichayaha Chit Anavo is the spiritual particles, the spiritual sparks who are the Jivas the term Jivanavichayaha all of them together Hare Surya Saiva Prathah Hare is like a Surya Prathah just as the sun rays are non-different from the sun similarly the Jivas are non-different from Hare Apitu Tadbhed Vishayaha but just as the sun rays leave the sun and then as they go further and further away from the sun they will become cooler and they may lose their heat entirely so like that there is a difference also so there is Bhed Vishayaha they have a characteristic of being different also and what is the difference Vashemaya Yashya they can come under Maya in contrast Krishna is Prakrutipatir Eveshwara Iha Prakrutipatir He is the Lord of Maya He is Eshwara of Maya Jivamukhtopi Prakrutivashayasyogya Swagudataha Jiva even if it is liberated it is vulnerable Prakrutivashayogyataha it is possible that it can come under Maya because of its constitutional position Swagudataha so here the main theme of this tattva is the relationship between Jiva and Eshwara basically the Upanishads talk about Tattvatraya Tattvatraya three truths they are called sometimes as Alliteration of Jiva there is Jagdish Jagat and Jiva these three are Jagdish, Jagat and Jiva now what is the relationship between these three that is one of the major points of discussion in the Upanishads especially the Vedanta Sutra and the commentators explanation of what the Sutras mean so now among these one thing is clear that the Jagat lacks consciousness this table is not conscious, we are conscious if we ask somebody do you exist what kind of question you are asking to ask such a question your brain doesn't exist obviously I exist yes even this table exists but if I ask the table do you exist, the table does not have the capacity to answer that question nowadays there is artificial intelligence which sometimes may seem to be superseding human intelligence also it's like the first time when chess playing computers were made people thought that computers will never be able to play as well as humans but then there was a computer defeated Garry Garry Kasparov at that time it was not just a shock to Garry Kasparov, it was a shock to the human ethos will in future machines become more intelligent than humans but we need to know that machines the way modern computers started if you look at the history they basically started with something called abacus abacus is basically a device in which you move the beads up and down and by the moving of the beads up and down certain calculations are made now no doubt a computer does this with phenomenally greater speed the speed at which a computer can crunch numbers is mind-boggling but just as somebody moves the beads of an abacus very fast we would not think that that produces emotions we would not think that produces happiness or distress or any kind of experience similarly no matter how phenomenally a machine works it does not experience any emotions it does not have consciousness we see movies where robots acting as if they have emotions, movies like Terminator and things like that but that is science fiction it is not science why? because if we think that robots can become conscious and can have emotions then we need to understand we should just replace the robot with the image of an abacus can an abacus have emotions? no just because the number crunching happens faster that does not mean emotions are going to come so basic point is the Jagat is clearly in a different category it is a Chitra then we have Jeeva and Jagadish what is the relationship between the Jeeva and the Jagadish so the Jagadish is the Supreme Jeeva is subordinate now there are in the Upanishads statements which go both ways there are statements which talk about the oneness of the Jeeva and the Jagadish and there are statements which talk about the difference between the two so when Shankaracharya wrote his commentary Shariraka Bhashya on the Vedanta Sutra his his challenge as well as the challenge of any Vedantic commentator is to how to reconcile these two kinds of statements one kind of statement is Jeeva and Jagadish are one the other kind of statement is Jeeva and Jagadish are two so he adopted the strategy of dividing scripture statements in two categories one is Mahavakya and the other is Nabhuvakya so Mahavakya means very important statements and Nabhuvakya means less important statements and he said that the statements in scripture which talk about the oneness of Jeeva and Eshwara they are Mahavakya they contain the greater truth and all the statements in scripture which talk about the two-ness of the Jeeva and Eshwara the difference of the Jeeva and Eshwara so that the Jeeva should worship Eshwara these are Nabhuvakya and in this way he basically divided scripture broadly into two and anywhere any Bhakti statement is found this is Nabhuvakya and in this way he reinterpreted the whole Vedic canon so that it would support the Advaitic interpretation Ramanujacharya when he came a little later so at that time he tore apart Shankara's thesis and in the main points he says where does scripture talk about this Mahavakya and Nabhuvakya and on what basis has been this two-level hermeneutic come up hermeneutic is the method of studying or interpreting or understanding scripture so from where does Shankara got the two-level hermeneutic and more importantly he says if we look at the scripture majority of the statements are about devotion and worship the Puranas are filled with worship statements about people worshipping the Devatas, worshipping the Supreme the Upanishads also have statements worshipping the Supreme so he says basically by this strategy more than 90% of scripture is declared as lagoon he says this goes against the integrity of scripture and then he said we have to understand scripture in a way that both the statements of oneness and of difference are honoured both the statements are held to be true and he gave a particular understanding which is called Vishishtadvaitavada now we will not go here into the technicalities of the four systems of Vaishnavism the four Vaishnav Sampradayas and the technicalities of their philosophy but suffice it to say here that what Ramacharya taught if we consider a pendulum, now Shankaracharya took the pendulum towards one extreme that extreme is of oneness everything is one, Jiva and Ishwara are one ultimately everything is Advaita there is no duality ultimately in conclusion, even Shankara accepted that there is duality in our experience and Shankara did not reject Shankaracharya did not reject the worship of the Devatas or even the worship of Vishnu he said yes you should worship till you ultimately realise that you are one with him but till you come to that you should worship so he incorporated Bhakti but as a means to Bhukti so he basically took the pendulum to the one extreme of Advaita Ramacharya brought it to a little balance and said no it's not Advaita yes there is Jiva and Ishwara are not different but there is a difference also and his defining metaphor Ramacharya's defining metaphor was of the body and the soul he says the soul remains unchanging but the body changes similarly for the whole cosmos with its material and spiritual aspects they are like the body and the Ishwara is like the Atma the Ishwara remains unchanging but the body changes similarly the cosmos changes we discussed in our previous class yesterday about how the challenge was for the Vedantic commentators how did this world with all its evil come from Brahman who is supposed to be free from all evil free from all faults so he explained that just as the Atma never grows old but the body grows old similarly Bhagawan is not affected by any of the qualities of any of the changes of this world but the world and the living entities in it they undergo transformations then Ramacharya he came and took the pendulum to the other extreme he said where do you see Ekatam he talked about Panchamdhetam he said if you have this Jagdish Jeeva and Jagat he said Jeeva and Jagdish are different Jeeva and Jagat are different Jeeva and Jagat are different Jagat and Jagdish are different Jeeva and Jeeva are different and in Jagat and Jagat also everything is different even two snowflakes are not same so he said there is no Dvaitavat there is Panchamdhetam what are the five differences there is Jeeva and Jagdish are different Jagat and Jagdish are different then Jagat and Jeeva are different the three differences among the three objects then there is Jeeva and Jeeva are different and Jagat and Jagat are also different so he took the pendulum to the other extreme saying that there is only Dvaitavat Dvaitavat so everything is different they are the intellectual equivalent of world wars between the Advaitavadis and Dvaitavadis so when the Advaitavadis mother followers they would write a commentary on the Vedanta Sutra which would refute the Advaitic commentators then they would put the commentary on two elephants one elephant would go to Kanchipuram another elephant would go to Varanasi and that elephant they would drop it like dropping a bomb on the enemy camp they would drop it on the Advaitic commentators Advaitic scholars would all come together and say how do we refute this now and they will try to refute this the books would also have this very bellicose mood so for example the Madhava scholars would write books like called Advaita Kalanala Kalanala is the fire of destruction Advaita Kalanala is the fire of destruction for Advaitavada and then the Advaitic scholars would also come together and write a book and they would also put the elephant and send it back to Udupi to drop it on them and like that for centuries the war went on between the intellectual warfare so then when the Gaudiya Vaishya Santipataya came so the pendulum went from one extreme Madhavacharya, Brahmacharya brought it to a middle point somewhere and Madhava took it on the other extreme Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and especially after Bande Vidya Bhushan he brought the balance sheet so actually our philosophy you know in terms of institution we are affiliated with the Madhva Sampradaya but in terms of doctrine we are much closer to the Avishishtha Advaitavada of Ramacharya, Sri Vaishnavism so our understanding is of what it is Achint Bheda Bhed that yes there is oneness and there is difference also this is talked about this term as actually never used by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu Achint Bheda Bhed the term was first used by Jiva Goswami and then Jiva Goswami he used the term to describe Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's teachings and then Krishna Das Kapila Goswami used it also later and of course then it has become the standard term for describing our Sampradaya Siddhanta so what does this mean Achint Bheda Bhed so the basic tenet that Jiva Goswami holds in his Sandarbhas is that what scripture says is true so if scripture says that the Jiva and Ishwar are one that is true if scripture says that Jiva and Ishwar are different that is also true now how can both happen that is Achint so the Abhed is also true and how both can always be true that is Achint so Achint Bheda Bhed now this Achintya has to be understood very carefully we will talk about Achintya Dattu a little bit more when we come to it explicitly but here it is being indirectly referenced see Achintya is not intellectual escapism Achintya is not that just because we can't understand it we call it Achintya it is not that there is a very serious devotee or a devotee is supposed to be very advanced and the devotee sleeps two hours in a japa and then he says my japa 16 rounds is over how if he is sleeping two hours how did he complete the japa that is Achintya Dattu that is not Achintya that is condition of course we should be critical or offensive to senior devotees but Achintya is not licenced for intellectual escapism or intellectual irresponsibility Achintya essentially means we approach scripture in a mood of reverence and when scripture makes certain statements that are not understandable by our intelligence then we submit our intelligence to scripture it does not mean that any and every logical thing is to be accepted and called Achintya first of all the statements have to be made in scripture and then also it is not that just because we say something is Achintya we don't try to understand it we don't try to understand it just like we do say that one way in Yamaracharya's experience how is there Achintya Bhed Abhed the Abhed is that we are one in quality the Abhed is that we are one in quality the Bhed is that we are different in quantity we are both spiritual but then Krishna is Vibhu we are Anu this is a very simplified explanation deeper level actually we are not in one quality also because we know Krishna has 64 qualities the Jiva has how many qualities at most how many Jiva has 50 qualities at most Brahma has 50, Shiva has 55 Vishnu has 60 and Krishna has 64 actually this is also not true because Krishna doesn't have only 64 qualities Krishna has unlimited qualities Anant Guna Sampanna Narayana that is the beginning definition of the absolute truth given by Ramanujari so within a particular analytical framework which Rupa Goswami uses in the Bhakti Samasindhu he analyses Krishna to have 64 qualities but it is not that Krishna's qualities are limited only to 64 within that analytical framework just like we can say that Krishna has 6 opulences does that mean he has only 6 opulences no within that analytical framework the 6 opulences include everything else that we may bring in but Krishna's opulences are not limited only to 6 you know there are verses in the Bhagavatam which say that even if one could count all the atoms of the universe one will not be able to count the qualities of the absolute so in different analytical frameworks certain number will be given so actually in that sense we are not even qualitatively one with the supreme because in terms of qualities Krishna has unlimited qualities whereas we have finite qualities so when this qualitative oneness is referred to it is primarily in terms of that Krishna is Satchitananda in composition and the Atma is also Satchitananda in composition so that is what we refer to as qualities in quantity yes there is a big difference Krishna is infinite we are finite so this is one way to understand so Achintya is not intellectual escapism or illogicality there is actually illogical there is logical and there is translogical illogical means something that is so silly that it cannot withstand the scrutiny of logic whereas translogical means something that is so lofty that logic cannot stand in front of it that logic cannot stand in front of it why not? because ultimately God is the absolute truth He is beyond everything logic is a frame of thinking and connecting things which we have come up with for understanding things in our own but Krishna is not God is not limited by that now to understand God means to recognise that He expands the limit of the possible to understand God means to recognise that He expands the limit of the possible what is possible for us that is possible for Him and what is impossible for us that is also possible for Him so therefore when we say that Krishna is doing something that is not illogical even if it doesn't make logical sense to us it is translogical so here one example is given of the how there is bheda and aikya there is oneness and difference and that is the example of the relationship between the spark and the sun so spark and the sun both are one in quality both are effulgent but they are different in quantity the sun can if we go near the sun we will get completely burnt the Ramayana describes how Jatayu and Sampatti the two vulture brothers they wanted to fly high into the sky and they went close to the sky and they were scorched by it you know if we go near a spark maybe a small part of our skin may be scorched if we touch it but the whole body won't be scorched nobody will burn to death because of a spark so definitely there is a difference in potency between the two so there is oneness but there is difference also another important point of difference is that the spark has its sustenance in the sun the spark would not exist if the sun did not exist and if the spark is not connected with the sun the further it goes away from the sun the spark keeps losing its potency so now sometimes we say that Krishna is our father Krishna is our source this has to be carefully understood because in another place also it is said in 2.20 Krishna said in the Bhagavad Gita that the soul is beginningless so if the soul is beginningless then how can the soul have Krishna as his source isn't it either one of the two has to be true if we have a beginning in Krishna then that means we are not eternal if we have if we are eternal then we can't have a beginning in Krishna Christian theologians have struggled with this paradox a lot and one of the ways they resolve the paradox is by redefining eternal their definition of eternal is forever from the moment of creation so creation is not infinity in the backward and forward direction for them eternity is only infinity in the forward direction so it is not infinity it is semi-infinity so their definition of eternity is semi-infinity their idea is every time a man and a woman unite together at that time a soul is created and from that time onwards the soul will go on living eternally so now this redefinition of eternality has many problematic implications to it not the least being that if that is the time when the soul is created then why do different souls have such radically different conditions now why is one soul born ugly and another soul born with a beautiful body why is one soul born wealthy why is one soul born in a poor condition this variety it just becomes very arbitrary so there is there are basically we talk about transmigration and we talk about reincarnation that is fine but within the Christian tradition they accept the soul yesterday I mentioned, does anyone remember the two ways, the way in which Buddhism goes wrong and the way in which Christianity goes wrong Christianity accepts soul without reincarnation and Buddhism accepts reincarnation without soul so they both go wrong in two different ways so now what is the idea in Christian conception there are three things there is the present life there is the afterlife and there is the pre-existence so they consider pre-existence to be anathema anathema means it is a cursed idea it is a deviation so they say that is not an acceptable belief, they say there is present life and then there is afterlife and this afterlife will go on for eternity so the Vedic understanding is that actually yes we are also eternal but we come from Krishna or Krishna is our source not in the sense of chronology 8 is in the sense of ontology chronology means time sequence like they say a chronometer is a clock so it is not in terms of chronology that ok at this time Krishna existed but didn't exist and at this time we came into existence so Krishna is our source not in terms of chronology but in terms of ontology, ontology means nature of existence the study of existence so our existence is eternally dependent on Krishna, we cannot exist separate from him and this eternal dependence on Krishna is conveyed through the point that we have our source in Krishna it is not that the soul has a beginning at any particular time but the soul's beginningless dependence on Krishna is conveyed through the point that we have that we have that he is our source to give another example to convey this point one of the favourite metaphors of the Upanishad for the Advaitins is the metaphor of the river merging in the ocean this is just as a drop of water goes into the ocean merges into the ocean, similarly the Jeeva enters into the Brahman and merges into the Brahman in the Bhagavatam it talks about the same metaphor twice but it talks about it in a different way Kunti Maharani when she prays she says let my consciousness flow towards you just as the Ganga flows towards the ocean so here the point is the same metaphor is there, the river going towards the ocean but when the Vaishnavas understand this metaphor, it is not a merging of beings it is a meeting of hearts it is a flow of consciousness that goes on and on forever it is not that the Jeeva and Bhagavan become, Ishwara become, Jeeva and Jagdish don't become one at the time of liberation, rather the Jeeva's consciousness constantly keeps flowing towards Bhagavan and doesn't flow anywhere else so it's a meeting of hearts it is not a merging of beings so similarly that is something which goes on and on that we, our consciousness keeps going towards Krishna in the third canto Kapiladeva when he is describing his pure devotees to his mother Devavati also says the same thing Ganga flows towards the ocean constantly my devotee's consciousness always flows towards me so this is a flow similarly Krishna is our source in the sense of flow it is not in the sense of chronological origination so here the point being made by Bhaktivinoda Thakur is that the Jeeva is like a spark and the spark is dependent on the sun for its very existence similarly the Jeeva is eternally dependent on the supreme for its existence and another difference that he gives over here is that he is basically putting in Sanskrit what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu teaching in the CC that Bhagwan is is Mayadheesh and the Jeeva is Mayadheem Mayadheesh means he is the lord of Maya Mayadheem means we are subordinate to Maya and this is actually the vision that Vyasadeva also has at the start of the Bhagavatam the Bhagavatam is a very complex book and it has different seeds what are the different frames of conversational frames in the Bhagavatam who is speaking to whom so the meta frame is Suta Goswami speaking to the sages of Naimisharan so that is one context of the Bhagavatam another is the more famous one Sukadeva Goswami speaking to Parikshit Maharaj that actually starts from the second canto onwards the last chapter of the first canto that is when Sukadeva Goswami appears and Parikshit Maharaj asks some questions there are two frames and Sukadeva Goswami explains that there is a third frame for the Bhagavatam and that comes at the start of the seventh chapter chapters 4, 5, 6 are the instructions of Narad Vyasa Samvad so Vyasa Dev is instructed by Narad Dev and then Narad Dev tells Vyasa Dev you go into Samadhi and meditate on the wonderful pastimes of the Supreme Lord and then describe those pastimes so after that at the start of the seventh chapter Vyasa Dev goes into meditation and when he goes into meditation his vision is described in five verses and Sukadeva Goswami says these five verses are actually the conceptual seed of the Bhagavatam that is the contextual seed contextual seed means in what context the Bhagavatam is spoken so I gave one class about the structure of the Bhagavatam talking about the conceptual, chronological and conceptual, chronological and contextual structure of the Bhagavatam so here the conceptual seed comes over here what does he say over there the first verse he says is that apashyat purusham purusham mayam chitada pashrayam so apashyat purusham purusham the first thing he says there is a perfect Supreme Absolute person mayam chitada pashrayam maya is under him and the next verse he describes is ya sammohitau jivoh atmanam tri gunatmakam paropimante nartham tat krutam cha vipadyate that jiva so Krishna is the Ishwar is above maya but the jiva is below maya so that is the vision the enlightened vision that and that Vyasadeva has and that same enlightened vision is being depicted here by Uttara Thakur now what is the significance of this that Krishna is above maya and we are below maya the significance of this is to recognise that Krishna is ultimately transcendent just like now in today's world there is a huge amount of prestige associated with science and people ask what is the scientific proof for this so just the kind of strong hold or the kind of prestige and hold that science has on people's mind that was the kind of prestige and hold that in the mediaeval times Advaitavada had on people's mind in India so anybody who had to speak if they spoke anything against Shankaracharya's philosophy but how could Shankaracharya be wrong now how can you go against Shankaracharya so everything had to be explained in terms of the reference word Shankaracharya's philosophy Advaitavada so now in Advaitavada God's existence is accepted but you may have seen some people have that saying on their t-shirt I was an atheist till I discovered that I was God so what does it mean there are these Advaitins they say that actually first they have this evolution and conception of God they say first you are an atheist you think there is no God then you become a polytheist that there are many Gods then you become a theist there is one God and then you become a non-dualist there is only God their idea that is a progression there is only God nothing exists except God but the problem with this idea is that if we think that yes there is only one God it is true there is only God that is true but God has numerous energies and that does not mean that we are all God so in the Advaitic understanding you can worship God but ultimately you have to go beyond God also how do you go beyond God by thinking that yes as long as you are conditioned as long as you are in the lower modes you cannot think about anybody something that is impersonal something that is without form something that is without qualities but therefore you should worship something with form but when you evolve at that time you will be able to think of the formless at that time you can go beyond form but actually we can never think about the formless you know if anything the see actually to put things in a in a simple way the only thing in Advaitavad is that there is nothing to think the only thing to talk is that there is nothing to talk the only thing to do is that there is nothing to do so it's actually a very emotionally barren conception and to make up for that emotional barrenness they have the idea that you may worship worship God initially but eventually you have to transcend God so their idea is that if this is Brahman when Brahman comes in contact with you remember the three Tattva which Upanishads talk about what are the Tattvatraya we discussed their interrelationship we were discussing various ways the three which start from Jiva Jagat Jiva Jagdish Jagat, Jiva and Jagdish so now their conception is that the Brahman is completely transcendental when Brahman comes in contact with Tamoguna we have Jagat when Brahman comes in contact with Rajoguna you have Jiva when Brahman comes in contact with Tamoguna you have Jagdish but when you go when there is pure Brahman there is not even Jagdish there is only Brahman so their conception is that to come to the level of pure Brahman you have to go beyond Jagdish also so initially you can worship Jagdish but eventually you have to go beyond Jagdish so this idea that means their conception is even God in his form is actually a product of Maya and that is why the point that God's form is beyond Maya, that God is Mayadesh is very important to understand when you understand that Krishna is beyond Maya and it is not only he is beyond Maya that rather he can take us beyond Maya so Krishna says if you surrender to me you can go beyond Maya so just as if we find that say a dog is chasing us and we are running away from the dog we are running away from the dog and the dog is just running faster and faster and just napping at our heels maybe he will bite at any moment at that time suddenly we see some person walking along the road and then that person looks very nonchalant and calm and if you come to know that person is the master of that dog and then he says Tommy stop and even the dog stops so like that we can try to run away from Maya we can try to become free but there is a limit to how much we can endeavour but if you can surrender to Jagdish then he can stop Maya so that is the faith with which a devotee approaches Krishna it is not just that we become intelligent enough to see through the illusions yes that is also required but ultimately when we surrender to Krishna it is Krishna who withdraws Maya then the agitation stops then you become peaceful prashanta manasam yenam yoginam sukham upaiti shantarjasam brahma bhutam kalmasyam 6.27 Krishna says upaiti shantarjasam and the yoga becomes pacified so here Bhaktivinoda Thakur is saying that Krishna is prakriti pati he is the master of prakriti and by surrendering to him we too can go beyond prakriti so I will summarise started by talking about first how there is the three tattvas jagat, jiva and jagadish and the relationship between them is what has been the challenge with the upanishadic commentators the vedantic commentators have had to face Upanishads contain a special statement that the jiva and jagadish are one and the jiva and jagadish are different Shankaracharya's Advaita Vata tries to reconcile this by saying the statements which talk about oneness are Mahavakya and the statements which talk about duality are Laghuvakya so Ramacharya's challenge to this is to hold where is this given in scripture that there is actually certain statements of Mahavakya and certain statements are Laghuvakya and secondly majority of statements talk about bhakti and about worship about duality in that sense so we are violating the integrity of the majority of scriptures to support a philosophy that can be based at best on a very small fraction of scriptural teachings so the pendulum which Shankaracharya's Advaita Vata takes towards one extreme of jiva and jagad are entirely one Ramacharya brings it to a balanced stage of Vishishta Advaita and then Malacharya takes it to the opposite of Dvaita Vata, Pancham Bhed there is no oneness at all there is a difference between various things jiva and jagad jagad and jagad jiva and jiva and jagad and jagad and then Vishishta Advaita Vata brings it back again to the balanced stage so when we say that the bhed and abhed both are there because scripture gives both statements and how can both be true? that we may not be able to understand that is why I said achintya and then we discussed achintya is not intellectual responsibility or illogicality it is translogicality based on a reverential approach to scripture and based on understanding of Krishna's omnipotence and achintya also we tried to gain some understanding we discussed that we are one in quality different in quantity but then this is a simplified understanding we discussed that we are also different in quality at one level and concluded especially by discussing about why is it important to understand that Krishna is beyond maya because impersonals also accept Krishna's worship but they say that is as long as you are in maya then you can worship and then beyond that it can go beyond the form of Krishna to merge in Brahma that is a misunderstanding and when we understand Krishna's position as transcendental lord then we recognise that by surrendering to him we too will be able to transcend material existence thank you very much are there any questions? like Shankaracharya wrote commentary on Bhagavad Gita in that what is this verse which you have mentioned like Krishna mentioned maya dakshina prapadyam so their whole philosophy is like we can go beyond maya God is product of maya so how he comments that ok the question is that how does Shankaracharya and Jatavaiten generally comment on verses where Krishna actually talks about maya dakshina prapadyam I am the lord of material nature there are different strategies they use one of the basic strategies is that they say that these are statements which are all laghu vaakya they are true but they are laghu vaakya so within the within this structure of the universe certain statements are true yes Krishna is the lord of prapadyam but then ultimately you have to go beyond it another statement is they say that the scriptures talk about I am not talking only about Shankaracharya's commentary because many Jatavaiten have written commentaries and later on also some of them say that yes Bhagavad Gita has different parts which are meant to encourage different people some sections are for bhaktas, some sections are for gyanis some sections are for yogis so if you are like the path of bhakti you can focus on those verses there is a famous yogi who wrote a commentary in the Bhagavad Gita but he finished his commentary in 6 chapters only why? because he is a yogi and he focusses on ashtamya yoga and his commentary is not at 6.47 it is at 6.46 6.46 is what? tapasvidhyo niko yogi bhagavad gita that is the conclusion of the Gita I call it so they have that attitude that different sections of Bhagavad Gita are meant for different people and Sanskrit also is a language which is open to multiple interpretations sometimes they also have this idea that when Krishna is referring to Maya when he is referring to Ma they try to interpret in such a way that Krishna is actually not referring there is the impersonal Brahman who is speaking from within Krishna and when Krishna refers to Ma he is not referring to himself, he is actually referring to that impersonal Brahman and they have various interpretive strategies but it is difficult to interpret the Bhagavad Gita in that way and that is one of the interesting things about the Bhagavad Gita there is a western scholar who has written who has taken about 108 commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita he has studied all of them together and he says that actually if you look at the verses of the Bhagavad Gita itself as well as the verses of the Vedanta Sutra they are themselves much more supportive of personalism than impersonalism so in general western commentators who have studied the Bhagavad Gita most of them have found the Bhagavad Gita to be very bhakti centred book in fact when Christian theologians came to India their initial conception was that Hinduism is monistic and when they read the Bhagavad Gita this is not a monistic book this is actually a devotional book very similar to the way Christians worship the monotheistic God so they felt that among the Indian literature the Bhagavad Gita is very close to Christian conception of God the Christian conception of worshipping God so basically the shadow of Shankaracharya's Advaita was cast for a long time on Indian translators of the Gita and that's why they often interpreted the Gita in impersonalist ways but in general the Gita definitely has impersonal sections there are verses which do talk about impersonalism and that is a part of the Gita but if you look at the overall Gita the Gita's culmination is in bhakti and the Gita does talk about the personal manifestation of the absolute truth and the highest manifestation any other questions? we have some basic ideas regarding shunyavad and nirvisheshavad but can you explain the exact difference so what is the difference between shunyavad, nirvisheshavad and mayavad firstly lets look at two different categories shunyavad and nirvisheshavad shunya literally means void zero nirvishesh means qualities which is actually a very technical philosophical term and I'll come to that a little later but lets focus first lets keep the definition simple as qualities so shunyavad means the ultimate absolute truth is a void now of course buddhist philosophy is also very complex because what happens buddhist theologians, buddhist philosophers they tried to establish their philosophy and they went into lot of complexities now the complexity often ends in incoherence so their idea of shunya, they say shunya is not non-existence they say the shunya is the existence beyond existence and non-existence now what does that mean? they say you figure it out its basically a huge amount of void jugglery but suffice it to say they have the conception that we have to give up all desires in that sense we have to create a shunya or a vacuum in our consciousness now after that what happens there are different buddhist philosophers who have different ideas about it for example nirvana is like the extinguishing of a candle our consciousness is like a candle the flame of a candle and when we extinguish a candle the illumination goes off so like that our consciousness gets extinguished but some buddhist philosophers argue that actually even if the candle is extinguished the energy that was there, the energy continues to exist so like that they say consciousness continues to exist at some other level but essentially their focus is on that that that desire is the cause of suffering therefore give up desire and you become free from suffering so their idea is that we should give up all desires so in a simplified sense our acharya has explained that shunya means void and we just drain our consciousness of all desires and what remains there is something else that will emerge but that is not the mainstream buddhist understanding so shunya is basically empty our consciousness of all substances not only empty our consciousness of all substances because for them they have no conception of a soul as the locus of consciousness as I said buddhists don't have a conception of a soul as the locus or as the source of consciousness so when you empty all consciousness what remains even if nothing remains so in that sense it is like a it is like a philosophy of nothingness so shunya is basically the sort of basically we end our existence to end our suffering but an ending of existence is not an ending of physical existence by committing suicide they also understand that desires are what cause transmigration so when we end desires then our transmigration ends and in that sense our existence also ends so shunya is basically end of all existence in a simplified sense now now nirvisheshavad is a term which is used to describe advaitavad what shankaracharya taught was technically called as advaitavad advaitavad, dvaita is two-ness advaita is there is no two-ness so in english it is translated as non-dualism so they accept that duality is there in our present reality yes you are there i am here there is a teacher and there is a taught but in conclusion we go beyond duality to non-duality that is advaitavad now how does this so if the if the absolute truth is ultimately advaita then where does the dvaita come from where does the two-ness come from so there have been multiple schools of thought following shankaracharya because shankaracharya taught at that time he taught advaitavad but subsequently there were other vaishnav philosophers who refuted shankaracharya's philosophy actually there were also some shaivite personalists also they also refuted shankaracharya but the point is advaitavad was refuted so subsequent generations of advaitins when they wanted to defend this advaitavad they came up with two broad schools of thought one is they call it as pratibimbavad and the other is mayavad so pratibimbavad so advaitavad has two branches pratibimbavad and mayavad pratibimbavad is the idea that just as there may be one moon in the sky but we can see many moons in many puddles or in many pots filled with water and if the water in the puddles or the water in the pot shakes then the moon's reflection also gets distorted so like that there is only one absolute truth there is one brahman but in the reflection we see many different jivas who think that they are separative so this is pratibimbavad but pratibimbavad raises the question in what is the pratibimbavad happening you know isn't it if brahman is all that exists ekam brahman tyanasthi there is only brahman that exists if there is a reflection and even if there is a distorted reflection there has to be some medium in which reflection is happening so pratibimbavad is a little difficult to sustain so the other school of thought which came up was called as mayavad mayavad is the idea that the whole conception of two-ness is maya the whole conception of duality is maya so in the act of consciousness there are three things there is a subject of consciousness so for example if I am looking at Digvijay bro so I am the subject of consciousness that means I am observing and there is a stream of consciousness which is going from me to him and he is the object of my consciousness so in any act of conscious perception there is a subject of consciousness there is a stream of consciousness and there is the object of consciousness so mayavad holds that this entire thing the whole idea of subject of consciousness and object of consciousness both are false so all that exists in reality is simply the stream of consciousness so there is a aisa dhyan karna chahiye ki kaun dhyan kar raha hai aur kiska dhyan kar raha hai aur iska bhi dhyan nahi rehta chahiye now in principle this is true we also want to become absorbed like that we also want to become absorbed like that but there is one thing that we forget that we are absorbed in something but that doesn't mean our existence is dissolved we do exist but we forget ourselves that is the meaning of absorption but absorption of being is not dissolution of being absorption of being is not dissolution of being in fact even for absorption there has to be a subject who will get absorbed without that there cannot be absorption so mayavad holds that the whole concept of subject and object both are illusion so that means the bhakta is an illusion bhagwan is an illusion only the stream of consciousness between the two that is the reality this is mayavad now nirvisheshavad is a term which the vaishnavacharyas have used to contrast the concept of vishay and its absence in advaitavad so vishesha is something similar to achintya vishesha is a term which is used as far as i remember by Vyasatirtha, Vyasatirtha was one of the most prominent acharyas in the madhva sampradaya he used it first to explain madhva's philosophy and baldevidya bhushan used it for the first time in our gaudiya vaishnava sampradaya in his govindabhashi commentary of the vedanta sutra so vishesha means this is what is the relationship between an object and its quality so for example fire burns now when i say fire burns like what prabhupada explains as dharma dharma is an inalienable characteristic of something something that makes that thing that thing so it is the burning capacity that makes fire into fire so now when we say fire burns so we cannot have a conception of fire without its burning properties at the same time fire and burning are two different things if there are two entirely one thing then we could just say fire or we could say burns but it won't make sense we say fire burns then it makes proper sense so burning is a vishesha of fire burning is a quality of fire and the quality is in one sense one and another sense different so similarly what vaishnavacharya explains that bhagwan is satchitananda at the same time he has many qualities which are his vishesha and those qualities are one and different from him there is vishesha but the advaitins hold that the absolute truth brahman is a non-differentiated homogenous oneness so their idea is the absolute truth does not have personality the absolute truth does not have activities the absolute truth does not have qualities the absolute truth does not have relationships the absolute truth is simply a non-differentiated oneness so that means their absolute truth does not have vishesha, that is the conception of these people so in one sense advaitavad is the original name of the doctrine then within the advaitavad there are two branches there is kathimimbavad and mayavad, there are many others also but others have not become so prominent and among these two the most prominent has been mayavad generally the vaisnavacharyas while referring to it the whole advaitavad, they often refer to it as mayavad itself and it's not just vaisnavacharyas, actually mayavadis they themselves refer to themselves as mayavadis also so and that's why the advaitins when they refer to themselves, the opposite of maya is tattva, so they call themselves as tattvavadis so now, from the philosophical perspective of the vaisnavas where the brahman has vishesh, so the name given for that same advaitavad is nirvisheshavad, so advaitavad and nirvisheshavad are the same and mayavad is a subdivision of nirvisheshavad so shunyavad is a different category entirely shunyavad is non-vedic whereas advaitavad is a misunderstanding of the vedantic teachings is it clear? so, thank you very much continue our discussion on dashamola tattva.