78. The Foundational Texts of Indian Philosophy | Madhvacharya's Dvaita | Swami Tattwamayananda
Table of contents
- Advaita philosophy teaches us to see the divine in everyone and everything, making it incredibly relevant and unifying for our times.
- Everyone is fundamentally unique, and that's why we all think, act, and respond differently.
- Your actions, done with detachment and sanctity, can lead to the highest spiritual enlightenment.
- Do your duty with sanctity and detachment, and even mundane tasks become a path to spiritual enlightenment.
- First master the rituals, then seek the ultimate truth.
- The moment you feel renunciation, your spiritual journey begins.
- True spiritual realization comes from complete self-surrender to God, transcending worldly concerns and embracing divine grace.
- Words can point to experiences, but true understanding comes from living them.
- What we perceive with our senses is only relatively real, not absolutely real.
- True wisdom comes from deep contemplation, not just reading.
- True wisdom isn't just read, it's deeply contemplated and lived.
- Even at the highest state of spiritual enlightenment, you won't neglect your duty; you'll just transcend the desire for personal gain from your actions.
- Debate is the best food for the mind—Shankar at 13 sought arguments, not meals, and transformed philosophy forever.
- True divinity is experienced beyond the physical world, transcending the empirical through omnipresence and immanence.
Advaita philosophy teaches us to see the divine in everyone and everything, making it incredibly relevant and unifying for our times.
We are continuing our discussion on Ramanuja philosophy. There are just a few important points that I want to mention at the beginning of this session. One important aspect of my exposition of UHA Vista is that in the coming sessions, we will be discussing other systems of Vedic philosophy, like the schools of the Isab system, and so on. Something very interesting and very important to keep in mind is that Advaita appears to be the most relevant and most acceptable school of Vedic philosophy for our times. One important reason, which was incidentally mentioned by Bobi Colman in the last session during his interaction, is that Advaita has a tremendous moral imperative. It helps you to look at the entire creation as the expression of one spiritual reality, recognizing the presence of the Divine in everyone and in everything. This universal aspect of Advaita makes it more relevant. This does not mean that other systems are irrelevant or insignificant. Not at all. The point is that Advaita includes within it all other systems of philosophy.
This all-inclusiveness actually existed even thousands of years before Advaita philosophy was put in place as a formal philosophical and metaphysical system by Shankaracharya in the 8th Century AD. In fact, you have to remember when you talk about the Vedic tradition, of which Advaita is the finest fruit, there were close interactions between ancient India and ancient Greece at the philosophical and cultural levels. Even before the great well-known Greek philosopher Thales, belonging to the 7th Century BC, it is said that there were close intellectual, cultural, and spiritual interactions between ancient Greece and India. There is a well-known quotation from the Brihadaranyaka Samhita, which belongs to the 7th Century BC, indicating that the work must have come into existence almost around the same time when the earliest well-known Greek philosopher lived in Greece.
A statement in the Brihadaranyaka Samhita is very interesting to understand the meaning, significance, antiquity, and continuity of Advaita. This statement is from the Brihadaranyaka Samhita by a well-known astrologer and astronomer of ancient India, named Mihira, one of the most well-known astronomers of ancient times in India. He was a sage and saint, and he says that among the Yavanas (a term used to refer to people who lived outside the Indian subcontinent and were highly cultured and evolved, primarily referring to the ancient Greeks and Macedonians), there was a tradition of great philosophical, spiritual, and metaphysical heritage. These Rishis (sages) are also to be honored as much as the great sages of ancient India. This shows the antiquity and the all-inclusive nature of the Vedic tradition. The most important statement in the Brihadaranyaka Samhita is "Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma" (All this is indeed Brahman), which is the essence of Advaita.
Advaita philosophy is the direct descendant and continuation of this all-inclusive Vedic philosophy. Any system of philosophy that takes an entirely different perspective, diametrically opposite, will be deficient to that extent. I already mentioned this earlier in the Dvaita system, where there is this concept of intrinsic ultimate difference between everyone and everything in this world. One important argument in defense of this concept, called "Panchabheda", is the intrinsic, ultimate, and fundamental distinction and difference between different objects in this world and different living beings. This includes the eternal difference between God and the world, and also between different living beings. This fivefold distinction has already been described and expounded many times in earlier sessions. According to Madhvacharya, the reason why the seven or eight billion people living on this planet...
Everyone is fundamentally unique, and that's why we all think, act, and respond differently.
Earlier in the Madha system, there is this concept of an intrinsic ultimate difference between everyone and everything in this world. One important argument in defense of this is what is called "a means," which refers to the intrinsic, ultimate, and fundamental distinction and difference between different objects in this world and among different living beings. This also includes the eternal difference between God and the world and among different living beings. This fivefold distinction has been described and expounded upon many times in earlier sessions. It is based on one fundamental doctrine which Madar put forward in his Anuak.
According to Madara, the reason why the seven or eight billion people living on this planet behave differently, respond differently to different experiences, act differently, think differently, and speak differently is because each of them is essentially different from everyone else. This is his important theory. If everyone were the same, then all eight billion people in this world should act in a very uniform manner without any distinction, thinking, acting, and being equally good, bad, or neutral. However, there are differences; every man and woman is different from every other man or woman in thinking, even within the same family. This shows that the doctrine of reincarnation, based on the transference of karma from one life cycle to another, will not completely explain these differences.
Madara states in his Anuak that the doctrine of the transference of karma from one life cycle to another, or reincarnation, is not enough to explain why individuals should all lose their individuality and become one with Brahman. Madara is trying to refute this idea by asserting that every individual being is different from every other individual being. There is this ultimate intrinsic fundamental distinction by their very nature. This is a very important point Madara makes, and he calls it a very important principle. Based on this fundamental principle of Ja (individual beings) and Isar (God), there is a distinction between different objects and between Ja and Isar.
Whatever difference you can conceive of, if you analyze the absolute reality on the basis of Isar (God) and the world and different objects, then the third factor, individual Jas, are entirely different from each other. This is an important point to remember. To understand this, you can perhaps refer to some of the related doctrines found in Raan's philosophy.
There is a reason why Madara strongly felt the need to evolve a new system of philosophy when already there was a system of philosophy trying to refute Ad. We have to remember the historic timeline: Shankar in the 8th century AD, Ramanuja in the 11th century, and Madara in the 12th century, more or less. Shankar's century and Ramanuja again felt the need to evolve a system of philosophy which is a compromise between the Ad of Shankara and the D of Madara. Ramanuja's system can be called some kind of Ana, but with the condition that there is no doubt the reality is one, but that reality is present and current as an indweller in all living beings. In that respect, there is this identity. However, a Ja cannot be the same as Brahman because Isar is omniscient, all-knowing, and capable of creating and preserving this world. All these qualities cannot be attributed to Ja, so there is a fundamental difference, but there is also an element of identity and non-difference.
Madara took an entirely different line from Ramanuja and Mangra, both. Madara's system can be called a polar opposite of Ad, and it is called D. When it comes to action, human endeavor, and its results, there are some interesting doctrines put forward by some of the great Visa.
Your actions, done with detachment and sanctity, can lead to the highest spiritual enlightenment.
In the context of beings, there is an identity, but still, a ja cannot be the same as Brahman. This is because Isar is omniscient, all-knowing, and capable of creating and preserving this world. These qualities cannot be attributed to ja, indicating a fundamental difference. However, there is also an element of identity and non-difference, which is called Madara. Madara took an entirely different line from Ramanuja and Mangra, presenting a system that can be called a polar opposite of AD, known as D.
When it comes to action, human endeavor, and its result, some interesting doctrines have been put forward by great Visa philosophers. Although they are not as well-known as Benar, Vanta, Sudar, and others, their contributions are significant in explaining many of the tenets of Vishad. One such philosopher is Mead Guru, who wrote several books. Unfortunately, some of his works are not available in printed form and are still found as manuscripts in important libraries like Naya Prash N D.
According to Mead Guru, who appeared between Ramanuja and the later philosophers of the Ranja systems, his place is not as significant as that of either Wad or Suduri. Suduri is well-known for his great commentary, Sud Prasa, on Raman Sasia. Mead Guru elaborates on some of the important doctrines of Raman, especially with regard to Karma. He states that our actions and their results are entirely a gift from God. According to him, God's satisfaction or dissatisfaction determines the outcome of our actions. If our actions please God, He will grant a good result; if not, the result may be unsatisfactory. Even our samsaras, impressions, and tendencies are essentially gifts from God, indicating a kind of fatalism or total surrender to God.
This concept should be understood in light of AD and his concept of Karma. AD teaches that if you do your duty, whatever that duty may be, it is not necessarily a spiritual responsibility. It could be secular activity, such as worshipping in a temple, praying, or performing ritualistic forms of spiritual activity. In the Bhagavad Gita, the activity that Arjuna was supposed to be involved in was not necessarily spiritual. He was a soldier under the pay of a king, tasked with protecting the poor, the weak, women, and children. Krishna asked him to convert that activity into a kind of worship, emphasizing the importance of doing one's duty with a sense of sanctity and sacredness.
Such a broad interpretation of Karma cannot be found in either Ramanuja or Madha systems, which insist on complete surrender, known as propati, surrendering everything to God and waiting for a happy result. In many traditions, God can be unpredictable, sometimes playing pranks or being capricious. AD tells you not to worry about whether you are pleasing or displeasing God. Instead, you should do your duty with a sense of sanctity and sacredness, whether it is cooking in the kitchen, working in a factory, teaching in a university, or treating patients in a hospital. This approach becomes your road leading to the highest spiritual enlightenment.
Do your duty with sanctity and detachment, and even mundane tasks become a path to spiritual enlightenment.
In traditions, God is sometimes seen as playing pranks and being unpredictable, much like a child crying and asking for more. You can never know what this God will do to you; even if you are doing everything wonderfully, it may not please Him. However, the philosophy advises that you don't need to worry about whether you're pleasing or displeasing God. Instead, you should do your duty with a sense of sanctity and sacredness. This could be cooking in the kitchen, working in a factory, working in a field, teaching in a university, or treating patients in a hospital. Whatever the activity, do it with a sense of detachment and sanctity, and that becomes your road leading to the highest spiritual enlightenment. This is a very important principle to keep in mind.
Both in Madhva and Advaita systems, and also in all other succeeding systems of non-dualistic philosophy, whether it is Nimbarka or even Ramanuja's system, there is always this important fact of a God who may be capricious and unpredictable. You have to please Him and be in His good books. This is one of the reasons why Advaita appears to be so rational. Here, you should believe in God, pray, worship, and meditate, all of which are wonderful. But suppose you cannot or are not interested in doing that; you can sit at home and do your duty properly with a sense of sanctity and sacredness, with total application and detachment. That so-called secular activity becomes a spiritual activity. This is an important difference between Karma as understood in Advaita and Karma as understood in non-Advaitic systems, especially non-Vedantic systems of Bhakti philosophy.
In non-Advaitic systems, the result of your activity, whether good or bad, depends on whether God is happy with you or not. However, in Advaita, you can pray to God, but you don't have to worry about displeasing Him because you are doing everything with a pure heart. This highlights the rational aspect of Advaita and why it is so acceptable to modern rational people, including agnostics and modern thinkers. It offers a sense of spiritual freedom and an absence of a capricious God who might impose the worst consequences even if you are doing everything wonderfully.
Another important philosopher belonging to the Ramanuja system, called Guru, also sheds light on Ramanuja's concept of Karma. According to him, one should study the Vedic texts but need not worry about their meaning. The Vedic texts contain many injunctions for performing rituals like Agnihotra and Adra. The purpose of performing these rituals is to go to heaven, which means living a happy life in a very hedonistic and Bohemian sense. You should perform these rituals as mentioned in the injunctions of the Vedas, but you need not worry so much about inquiring into their meaning.
According to Ramanuja, one should practice these rituals and, after finishing that stage, inquire into the ultimate nature of reality. After Purva Mimamsa, you should go to Uttara Mimamsa, which means first you should be fully established in the performance of all rituals and then go for higher intellectual and metaphysical inquiry into the ultimate purpose of human life. You cannot do that without first performing all these rituals. This is what Ramanuja says. His Brahma Sutra Bhashya is linked to an earlier book of Bodhayana Vritti, which Ramanuja got a copy of in Kashmir before writing his commentary on the Brahma Sutras.
First master the rituals, then seek the ultimate truth.
Ramanuja emphasizes that one should practice rituals and, after completing that stage, inquire into the ultimate nature of reality. According to him, after mastering the rituals, one should proceed to Brahma Jasa, which means engaging in higher intellectual and metaphysical inquiry about the ultimate purpose of human life. However, this higher inquiry cannot be undertaken without first performing all the necessary rituals. This is what Ramanuja advocates.
Ramanuja's work, Brahma Sura Bhashia, is linked to an earlier book by BHA V, which he obtained in Kashmir before writing his commentary on the Brahma Sutras. To understand Shankaracharya, it is essential to comprehend the positions of Ramanuja and Madhara within the context of Shankaracharya's teachings. It is crucial to note that in India's Vian tradition, no system of philosophy is considered wrong or bad. Each system is seen as correct for certain times, ages, and people.
A significant statement from the tradition asserts that any system of philosophy, which is not AA, does not imply that it is mad or incorrect. Madhara lived in the 12th century, while Goa, who wrote this in the 6th century, used the term "d" to refer to those different from AA. The problem with non-Adin systems is that they may find faults with other philosophies. However, AA never tells anyone they are wrong or that they should change their ways. According to AA, nobody is wrong; they may be incomplete or imperfect in their understanding, but they are not entirely wrong.
Shankaracharya explains that if one has performed many rituals in previous lives or this life and has enjoyed great things in heaven, they might feel that they have had enough. At this point, they do not need to continue seeking more prosperity, wealth, or heavenly comforts. Instead, they can give up these pursuits and contemplate the truth behind human existence, asking if there is a higher goal in life than just seeking prosperity and health.
The first Sutra, Jasa, begins the inquiry into the ultimate truth of existence and the realization of absolute reality. This inquiry can start even when one is an infant, as wisdom is not confined to age. Shankaracharya suggests that those born with a strong sense of renunciation and spiritual inquiry can begin their spiritual journey at any moment when they feel a sense of renunciation.
Shankaracharya's system relies on certain important mantras from ancient texts, which state that the moment one feels they no longer desire money, wealth, or status, and instead seek to understand the ultimate truth behind human life and existence, their spiritual inquiry can begin.
The moment you feel renunciation, your spiritual journey begins.
In the morning, a child may not be interested in spiritual matters, but Shankaracharya emphasizes that those who are born with a strong sense of renunciation and a deep spiritual inquiry into the ultimate truth can begin their spiritual journey at any moment. Shankaracharya says that for such individuals, their spiritual life can commence whenever they feel a sense of renunciation. This is why Shankaracharya's system relies on certain important mantras found in some ancient texts, which are not among the most well-known ones.
These ancient texts suggest that the moment you feel a strong sense of renunciation—when you no longer desire money, wealth, or status and instead seek to understand the ultimate truth behind human life and existence—your spiritual journey can begin. This sense of renunciation may be the result of several life cycles of spiritual evolution. When born with an inborn sense of renunciation, one might not chase after material pleasures or high-paying jobs. Instead, they might find themselves drawn to philosophical texts or spiritual teachings.
For instance, Paul Brunton, who was neither very old nor very young, happened to come across the teachings of Ramana Maharshi. Although not many books were available at the time, just a few articles were enough for him to realize that there was something more profound than what he had been seeking. This led him to travel to India in search of deeper spiritual knowledge.
Advaita Vedanta, as taught by Shankaracharya, includes within it both the paths of Ramanuja and Madhva. This inclusivity is a significant point to remember. According to the system, especially as emphasized by the great saintly person from the Sringeri system, it is crucial to follow the path of Dharma and avoid Adharma. This means strictly adhering to ethical and moral principles and diligently avoiding any form of deviation into Adharma.
The ultimate goal of Advaita Vedanta is to go beyond Dharma and Adharma. When one is established in the highest spiritual realization, it becomes psychologically impossible to deviate into Adharma. For example, if you have reached a state where it is impossible for you to tell a lie, you no longer need to be constantly alert to avoid lying. Similarly, Brahman becomes established in Brahman, and even by accident, one cannot deviate into Adharma.
According to Ramanuja, if you have tried all other paths like Karma Yoga, Raja Yoga, and still cannot achieve full spiritual establishment, you should surrender everything to God. This involves a strong sense of clinging to what is appropriate and avoiding what is inappropriate, accepting God as your sole protector, and feeling a sense of complete helplessness. This practice of self-surrender to God is considered the highest line to spiritual realization in Ramanuja's system. This level of devotion can be seen in the lives of many medieval saints who did everything in the name of Jesus or other devotional traditions where a devotee acts entirely in the name of God.
True spiritual realization comes from complete self-surrender to God, transcending worldly concerns and embracing divine grace.
To achieve spiritual realization, one must have a strong sense of clinging to what is appropriate and avoiding what is inappropriate. This involves accepting God as your sole protector, complete dependence upon God, and feeling that you are destitute, totally in a helpless state. Self-surrender to God is the highest practice, leading to a very high level of spiritual realization. This can be observed in the lives of many medieval saints who did everything in the name of Jesus, as well as in other devotional philosophical traditions where devotees act in the name of God.
According to Shankar, when you transcend the Dharma-Adharma equation, you reach a point where you don't have to worry about deviating into Adharma. Even if you want to tell a lie, you cannot; even if you want to practice Adharma, you cannot, because you transcend that empirical level. At that time, you become one with Brahman. This is a very important point to remember. Swami Vivekananda, speaking of renunciation, made a famous statement about Sannyasa: it is love for the terrible, love of death. He emphasized that when you develop a liking for something that makes you unhappy, you can never be unhappy because you learn to be happy even when tragedy strikes. Thus, nothing in this world can make you unhappy because unhappiness itself is transcended.
The concept of Advaita contains the prapatti aspect of Ramanuja and the idea found in the Madhva system, where everything is given to you as a gift from God, as a result of God's grace. This is a very important point to remember. Advaita is not merely a system of philosophy; it is a state of spiritual experience. Shankar makes it clear in many places, including the Brahmasutras and Upanishads, that Advaita is a state of spiritual experience, not just a philosophical system.
Swami Vivekananda explains that the statement "I am Brahman" is trying to explain something that cannot be fully explained. He uses simple analogies to illustrate this. For example, the sweetness of sugar cannot be explained but must be experienced. Similarly, an almanac predicting rainfall does not produce rain when squeezed. The word "sugar" or the prediction in the almanac makes sense only in context; otherwise, they are just words.
Words can point to experiences, but true understanding comes from living them.
The taste of something that you eat cannot really be explained. However, the word sugar is necessary for us to refer to something which makes sense only when you put it in your mouth; otherwise, the word sugar doesn't make any sense. In the gospel, in very simple language, it says, suppose an almanac predicts that there will be so much rainfall next month. The almanac is a book made from paper, maybe different things have gone into making it. If you take that book and squeeze it, you don't get one drop of rain. So, the word rain or the almanac talking about rainfall is only an attempt to mention something that really makes sense only when you experience it. This is true even in the empirical world, even the ordinary world.
Aam Brasi is the highest experience in AA, but the word or phrase AAS itself is not the highest state of experience. The experience denoted by the word or phrase is the highest state. From a spiritual point of view, Anin cannot quarrel with anyone because he becomes one with everything and everyone, achieving total transcendence of distinctions and differences. In fact, Madara has many wonderful things to say, which are very interesting to put together in context. This is a well-known book I quoted from.
Madara talks about this cosmic scheme of gradation based on spiritual qualities, emphasizing distinctions and differences, not unity and oneness. According to him, if you believe there are 8 billion people living in this world, these 8 billion people represent 8 billion different, totally distinct souls, which have done different things in their previous lives and are evolving slowly. There cannot be any distinction.
Now, what does Adin say? Someone listening to Madara may believe this is true. After all, even in your own family, two persons don't behave in the same manner. In society, people are different; in a nation, people are different. So, difference is the reality, and non-difference is just a myth. One may very well conclude that there is a difference, but this difference is only at the empirical level. Behind these differences, there is the spiritual spark, the spiritual reality, the Divinity within Atman Brahman that is the same. However, our mind, thought, emotions, feelings, and actions are all different.
All these actions, thoughts, and ideas we have done are different. We have done a lot of good and bad things, not identical, totally different. All people have accumulated totally different emotions and feelings, known as karmak. Whatever we do becomes a tendency, an impression, an aptitude, and accordingly, we continue doing things one life cycle after another. Our internal organs, called our anaras, mind, intellect, system of keeping memory called chitam, and our sense of identity, all these are different. Our vas are different, samaras are different, tendencies are different, but they come and go, changing from time to time. Good samsaras can be neutralized by bad samsaras, and bad samsaras can be neutralized by good samsaras; they keep changing.
Whatever is changing is real only in the relative sense, not in the absolute sense. So, existence is existence only at the empirical level. At the absolute, trans-empirical level, when you think of different living beings as at then, these differences do not matter. This is not acceptable to Rahman and Matar. So, whatever the senses perceive, according to TOA, whatever our mind and senses of perception objectify and perceive, they are not real because our senses perceive that they are real only in the relative sense.
What we perceive with our senses is only relatively real, not absolutely real.
Samsaras change from time to time. A good samsara can be neutralized by bad samsaras, and bad samsaras can be neutralized by good samsaras. They keep changing, so whatever is changing is real only in the relative sense and not in the absolute sense. This means that existence is only at the empirical level. At the absolute or trans-empirical level, when you think of different living beings, these differences do not matter. This is not acceptable to Ramanuja and Madhva, and it is an important point to note.
Whatever the senses perceive, according to our mind and senses of perception, is not real because our senses perceive that they are real only in the relative sense. They are not real in the absolute sense. What our eyes see and what our ears hear are all subject to change. Therefore, whatever is subject to change cannot be absolutely real, but they are not absolutely unreal either. They are only empirically real, only in the relative sense. They come and go and keep changing. According to Madhva and Ramanuja, they do not accept the definition that whatever is changing is not absolutely real. They say whatever is changing is also real, and whatever is unchanging is also real. The difference between the absolute and relative is not acceptable to either Ramanuja or Madhva, which is an important point to keep in mind.
Madhva says this cosmic scheme of gradation is a kind of omni-penetration. He explains that celestial beings, gods, and human beings all belong to different gradations and levels. In other words, the total difference and emphasis on eternal, intrinsic, and ultimate differences between everything and everyone in this world is an important philosophy of Madhva. In contrast, Shankara says these differences are there but won't be there all the time. Our ultimate goal is to go beyond differences. We go beyond differences when we go beyond the level of sensory and empirical perception. When we think beyond the empirical and relative, we can see there is a unifying principle behind all this, which is called the Absolute Ultimate Reality according to Advaita. Everything else is relative. This distinction is not acceptable to the followers of Ramanuja or Madhva. They believe there is an inherent gradation among all living beings. Some people are permanently destined to reside in hell, some in heaven, and some are in between. Everyone belongs to a specific level of evolution or gradation, which is an interesting aspect of the Madhva system.
We will conclude in the next session. Now, you can have interactions. I'm not focusing on the different tasks and details of epistemology of the Madhva system because, in an online class, it may not be very easy for anyone to focus on that, especially when you hear it. For serious students, if we can have interaction, you are most welcome.
Question from a student: "Hello Swami, if I remember correctly, in one class, did you say that Shvetaketu was arrogant at first? When did or did I misunderstand that? Was there a point when you said that he was arrogant in talking?"
Swami's response: "Yes, Shvetaketu is an important character in the Chandogya Upanishad, specifically in the sixth chapter. His father, Uddalaka, had sent him to a school far away from home. When Shvetaketu returned at the age of 24, he was very proud of his learning. You are right; there are people who have a lot of potential to grow spiritually but may be very arrogant. That arrogance also includes the seed for going beyond it—a strong will, tenacity, and strong self-confidence. Uddalaka makes use of those qualities he found in Shvetaketu. He doesn't scold him to begin with; instead, he asks him if he learned that by knowing which everything becomes known, or if he heard about that by hearing which everything becomes heard. This question is put to the son.
True wisdom comes from deep contemplation, not just reading.
In the sixth chapter of the Chhandogya Upanishad, the father Uddalaka sent his son to a school far away from home. When his son returned at the age of 24, he was very proud of his learning. Uddalaka noticed his son's arrogance, which can sometimes be found in people with great potential for spiritual growth. However, this arrogance can also include the seed for going beyond it, as it often comes with a strong will, tenacity, and self-confidence. Uddalaka decided to use these qualities wisely and did not scold his son initially. Instead, he asked him, "Did you learn that by knowing which everything becomes known? Did you hear about that by hearing which everything becomes heard?"
This question puzzled the son, as he had never heard of such a thing. This indicated that while he had studied the texts, he had not engaged in deep spiritual contemplation. Deep thinking and contemplation are crucial in spiritual teachings. Just listening to words or reading a book may not lead to profound understanding. It is often through solitude and reflection that the real spiritual significance becomes apparent.
For example, even a book like "Walden" by Thoreau, which is not typically considered a spiritual book, contains elements of reflection, contemplation, and a search for higher truth. A superficial reading might give the impression of a wandering man dissatisfied with modern technology. However, a deeper reading reveals a reflective thinker searching for something beyond the empirical world of pleasures and enjoyments. This deeper understanding is achieved through a process called Manana, which involves thinking and reflecting deeply on the text.
Similarly, in spiritual texts like the Upanishads or the Sermon on the Mount, deeper reflection and contemplation reveal precious insights that are not apparent through superficial reading. Uddalaka wanted to bring his son to a sense of humility and propriety. By asking him if he had learned about Brahman, the highest spiritual philosophy, he implied that true understanding is not possible through mere reading. It requires deep contemplation, reflection, and introspection.
At this point, the speaker transitions to addressing a question from the audience. An attendee asks if they can clarify something they read in the gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, to which the speaker responds affirmatively, inviting the question.
True wisdom isn't just read, it's deeply contemplated and lived.
In the discussion, the speaker emphasizes that knowing Brahman, the highest spiritual philosophy, is not possible merely by reading a book. It requires going deeper, which is achievable only through contemplation, reflection, and introspection on what one reads. This is the essence of understanding Brahman.
During the evening talk, a participant asks Swami G for clarification on a teaching from the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, specifically about the manifestation of the primordial energy or consciousness. Sri Ramakrishna explains that this primordial power, Maha Maya, covers Brahman. Once this covering is withdrawn, one realizes the true nature of the self, expressed as "I am Thou, Thou Art I." He further elaborates that as long as the covering remains, the concept that "I am He" (man is the Supreme Brahman) does not apply. The analogy given is that the wave is part of the water, but the water is not part of the wave.
Swami G explains this analogy by stating that the ocean can exist without the waves, but the waves cannot exist without the ocean. The wave is essentially the ocean in a different form. Similarly, a clay pot is just a form given to clay by a pot maker; without the clay, there is no pot, but the clay can exist without the pot. This illustrates that what we call a wave is nothing but the ocean itself, and this concept is also found in the teachings of Shankara.
Another participant, Mahaj, shares reflections on the lecture, mentioning the importance of understanding objective and subjective meditation and how it made him realize his distance from a good meditation technique. He also connects this to the idea of different stages of spiritual progress.
Mahaj then asks about balancing Brahma Jigyasa (inquiry into the nature of Brahman) with fulfilling one's duties, referencing Arjuna's dilemma in the Bhagavad Gita. Swami G clarifies that even when one reaches the highest state of spiritual enlightenment, one does not neglect their duties. Instead, one transcends the attachment to actions and the desire to enjoy the fruits of those actions. This detachment allows one to perform duties without being bound by them.
In summary, the discussion highlights the profound teachings of Sri Ramakrishna and the importance of deep contemplation to understand Brahman. It also addresses the balance between spiritual inquiry and fulfilling one's worldly duties, emphasizing that true enlightenment leads to performing duties without attachment.
Even at the highest state of spiritual enlightenment, you won't neglect your duty; you'll just transcend the desire for personal gain from your actions.
For more clarity, I think I know the answer, but a little bit more context will help all of us. One may wonder if, upon attaining Brahma Jnana, which is the realization of the nature of Brahman as absolute reality and the fundamental questions of human life, one might become prone to neglecting their duties. However, this really doesn't happen. Even when you reach the highest, most exalted state of spiritual enlightenment, you will not neglect your duty. The only difference is that you go beyond the idea that "I'm doing this for my benefit" or "I want to enjoy the fruits of my actions." You will not cling to your actions or the desire to enjoy the results of your actions. This absence of desire and identity with your actions, along with the attachment that comes with it, will be totally absent.
This is the only difference between an active person living in this world and a Brahman. Many of the great Brahmans, like Shankaracharya, exemplify this. I repeat what I have said many times in the past: if you look at the sheer volume of work that Shankaracharya did, I don't think India has ever produced anyone who accomplished as much. All the monastic orders and Vedic institutions you find in India today owe their existence to Shankaracharya. The Vedanta philosophy we are discussing today would not have existed without him.
Imagine if Shankaracharya had not come and founded this Vedantic metaphysics. The entire Vedic literature would have been misunderstood as merely a call for performing rituals. What Swami Vivekananda brought to this country in 1893, and what many other spiritual teachers have tried to follow in their own ways, all stem from the higher transcendental spiritual philosophy that comes from the Vedic tradition. This spiritual philosophy was a creation of Shankaracharya. Without him, what you would get is a group of old Brahmins performing rituals and pleading to different deities for wealth and long life.
When Shankaracharya was born and left, the scenario changed completely. He left behind a system of philosophy that tells you the Vedas are talking about the universal spiritual philosophy of unity and oneness of existence. Realizing this truth is the purpose of human life. This does not mean you should neglect your duty or leave your home behind. Even in the Paras Bhashya, Shankaracharya wrote commentaries indicating that many great teachers of Vedanta were not monks but enlightened kings like Janaka and householders like Uddalaka, who taught the highest Vedantic philosophy to their sons.
Shankaracharya's philosophy was not life-negating. He composed the most wonderful devotional hymns in the Sanskrit language, established four monasteries in different corners of India, and traveled all over, engaging in thousands of debates with teachers of Buddhism, Hedonism, Atheism, and Mimamsa. There is a funny episode from Shankaracharya's life when he was still a boy of maybe 13 or 15 years old. He crossed over the fence of a Mandir where an old man was performing rituals for wealth and status. The man thought Shankaracharya, a monk, had come for food. Instead, Shankaracharya asked for a debate, saying, "I want only argument as food." This man, Shankaracharya, went all over India, started ten monastic orders, and taught how to perform pujas, all within 32 years.
Debate is the best food for the mind—Shankar at 13 sought arguments, not meals, and transformed philosophy forever.
Please give me the pleasure of debating with you. You know, there's a funny incident involving Shankaracharya. When Shankara was still a boy, maybe 13 or 15 years old, he crossed over the fence of Mand. There was an old man performing rituals who wanted money, wealth, status, and a wife. Seeing Shankaracharya, he first thought a monk had come and offered him food. Shankaracharya replied, "No, I want only food that should be a kind of argument. I want to debate with you; that's the food you are going to give me, not cooked rice."
This man, Shankaracharya, went all over India and started monastic orders, establishing ten monastic orders in all temples and teaching how to perform rituals. Within 32 years, he taught a philosophy that goes beyond Karma and was himself an embodiment of karma. He practiced karma without the sense of doership and enjoyership.
You can practice a little bit of that detachment in your office, whether you are an IT specialist, a doctor, or an engineer. Be active and detached. Swami, who built the very temple in which I am sitting right now giving these classes, lived here for 13 years and did everything without a sense of attachment. This is true for many great teachers in different non-Hindu, non-Vedantic traditions. They may not articulate Karma Yoga, but great spiritual teachers like Christ or Buddha were also Karma Yogis.
Shankaracharya gave a very philosophical and spiritual articulation and the format of a compact philosophical metaphysical system. His work is widely recognized. For instance, there are statements by scholars like Kap who was the founder, and Dru who writes in his philosophy's second volume about the great work of Shankaracharya. Sister Nida and many others, including Gandhi, have also acknowledged the sheer volume of work he did.
I wanted to ask about immanence as well as transcendence. Philosophically, it seems logical to suggest that there can't be a profound transcendence without immanence and vice versa. The postulate is that they are the same, and the consequences of that are obvious. When we speak about Shankaracharya and his life, and even in this class where we ask questions, share, and learn together, we still have our own processes and internal life but also share the experience of learning together. It seems to be a complete system that is obvious. Whenever students gather to discuss these ideas, it seems that transcendence and immanence are one.
Other philosophers, without any disrespect, don't ring as true. In Vedanta, it expounds this idea of omnipresence through immanence and then transcendence. If you don't include transcendence, there is always the possibility of it becoming some kind of pantheism or panentheism. If you just talk about omnipresence, it can be misunderstood as pantheism because the empirical world is equated to God or the Divine. If you talk about immanence alone, it can also lead to panentheism. Therefore, immanence and omnipresence together, but then the...
True divinity is experienced beyond the physical world, transcending the empirical through omnipresence and immanence.
The concept of imminence, omnipresence, and transcendence is intricate and requires careful explanation. In Vant, the idea of omnipresence through imminence is expounded, followed by transcendence. If transcendence is not included, there is a risk of it being misunderstood as pantheism, where the empirical world is equated to God or the Divine. Discussing omnipresence alone can lead to similar misunderstandings. Therefore, it is crucial to consider imminence and omnipresence together. However, the absolute reality is also a matter of inner experience that transcends the empirical level, which is experienced at the transcendental level. Hence, the emphasis is on transcendence through imminence.
For instance, in 10A, there is a reference to an omnipresent sagath, which means that absolute reality has innumerable eyes, feet, and is all-pervading. At the same time, it is called purusha, which means the Divine spark residing within the body that has nine doors opening outside. This signifies that within the physical body, there is something spiritual and transcendental. This reality projects beyond the empirical, omnipresent, and imminent, reaching the transcendental.
The combination of imminence, omnipresence, and transcendence is the genius of Shankaracharya. Madhara fully accepted imminence, stating that Vishnu or Narayana is within all of us, implying a kind of identity where God is within us but still different. Shankaracharya, however, goes beyond the empirical level. At the empirical level, one cannot claim that the Supreme Divinity is within oneself. According to Raan, within each person, there is a Divine spark, but there is still a difference. There is identity, non-difference, and also difference.
Shankaracharya posits that at the highest, mystical, transcendental level, it is non-different from the absolute reality. This can be explained using the terms imminence, omnipresence, and transcendence. In Sanskrit, it is called andami, meaning imminent, Sandi, meaning omnipresent or pervading, and transcendental, which goes beyond words and can only be experienced. Therefore, Ad is not merely a philosophy but an experience, describing something transcendental using the language of imminence.
Thank you very much for the question, and I hope this explanation clarifies the concepts.