>>Rick: Welcome to Buddha at the Gas Pump. My name is Rick Archer. Buddha at the Gas Pump is an ongoing series
of interviews with spiritually awakening people. I've done hundreds of them now and if this
is new to you and you would like to check out previous ones, please go to batgap.com
and look under the past interviews menu. Buddha at the Gas Pump, this show is made
possible by the support of appreciative listeners and viewers, so if you appreciate it and feel
like supporting it in any amount there are PayPal buttons on every page of the website
batgap.com. My guest today is Swami Sarvapriyananda. He is the minister and spiritual leader of
the Vedanta Society of New York, so welcome Swamiji. >>Swamiji: Thank you for having me. >>Rick: Yes. You know I often say this at the beginning
of interviews. I really enjoyed preparing for this interview. You know, I really enjoyed preparing for this
interview, it was so delightful to listen to your talks, you know so clear and eloquent
and inspiring and deep and so I highly recommend that anyone who enjoys this interview go to
Swami's YouTube channel and listen to some of his other videos and Vedanta Society also
has audio podcast that you can subscribe to, listen to a bunch of things on there. So a little bit more about Swamiji. He joined the Ramakrishna Math and Mission
in 1994 and received sannyas which is a monastic vow in 2004. He has served as an Acharya, teacher of the
monastic probationers training center at Belur Math. He has served the Ramakrishna Math and Mission
in various capacities including being a teacher, being vice-principal, principal, and registrar
of various schools run by the Vedanta Society. So just out of curiosity, how old are you
now in human years. >>Swamiji: Yeah, I have to think about that. That is I will be 48 now. >>Rick: Yeah, you're well preserved and you
seem younger. And I hope that's not considered an irreverent
question, but I was just curious. My wife and I were... actually she was asking
me how old you are, and I said really don't know, seems like he's in his 30s. >>Swamiji: Actually, I had read this thing
about a rabbi comes to a congregation and he's very young and the people in the congregation
they complained to the chief rabbi that he's too young to be a rabbi and the chief rabbi
writes back saying you're right youth is a disqualification for a spiritual teacher but
give him time he'll overcome it. >>Rick: That's great (Laughter). There was some joke by Ronald Reagan on this
account, but I'm not going to try to remember it right now. In any case, I thought we might start with
the basics and we'll go way beyond the basics I'm sure in this interview. I think many people listening to this interview
will already be familiar with many of the terms that you'll be using such as Advaita
and Vedanta and so on, Brahman, but let's get our definitions straight so that we make
sure we're in agreement as to what these things mean. So, first of all, how would you define Vedanta. >>Swamiji: Vedanta is the philosophy embodied
in the Upanishads. Upanishads again are texts found in the core
religious texts of the Hindus, the Vedas. So in the Vedas towards the end of them sometimes
and sometimes scattered in the middle of those bodies of ancient Sanskrit texts you find
these spiritual philosophical texts called the Upanishads. So the Vedanta is a philosophy constructed
out of these Upanishads and Vedanta comes in many-many flavors but basically if you
were to ask what is the philosophy of Hinduism you would probably say Vedanta today, the
particular brand or flavor of Vedanta, which I and our order subscribe to or lean towards
is Advaita Vedanta, Non-Dual Vedanta, that would be set up against other varieties of
Vedanta like Dualistic Vedanta, Dwaita Vedanta. There are other schools, the
Qualified Monastic Vedanta -Vashisht Advaita. They are all different philosophical positions. I would say we lean towards Advaita Vedanta
because we are not exclusive in that sense, we recognize that there are truths in all
of these approaches. >>Rick: So, my understanding is that the word
Vedanta literally means end of the Veda, right? >>Swamiji: Yes, if you take it literally Anta
would mean end and Vedas, of course, the end of the Vedas, but I can imagine my Sanskrit
teachers rolling their eyes, you know end, not in the physical sense, here end would
mean the highest wisdom of the Vedas or the final conclusions of the Vedas. >>Rick: Yeah and Veda as I understand it means
knowledge, right? >>Swamiji: Literally again Veda would mean
knowledge, but the way the word is used it refers to the collections of ancient spiritual-religious
texts of the Hindus. >>Rick: Right. So then Vedanta would mean the highest knowledge
or the end of knowledge or the final knowledge or some such things. >>Swamiji: Exactly. Exactly. >>Rick: Okay. Good. And then Advaita means literally not two,
right? >>Swamiji: Not two. Dwaita means two, so Advaita means not two,
nondual. >>Rick: I don't mean to put words in your
mouth, but I'm just making sure we're on the same page, so this not two refers to is signifying,
well you say it. Is signifying what? >>Swamiji: Yes, that's an important distinction
to make, because sometimes when I address audiences outside India, especially those
with a Judeo-Christian background, when you speak about dualism and non-dualism actually
it means different things to different people. I think a Christian pastor told me to make
it clear that dualism here does not mean the dualism between good and evil rather in an
Indian philosophical context, a Vedantic context dualism means that it's an ontological separation
which would mean that the ultimate reality and we sentient beings and this universe we
inhabit if you take them as independent realities they're all separate independent realities
that's dualism. There's a fundamental difference between,
let's put it this way between you and God for example, so that would be dualism. And nondualism would exactly mean the opposite
that means there is no second reality apart from the Absolute or Brahman and you are that
Brahman, so the difference which appears to us, we experience difference that difference
would only be on the surface so to say and deep within the nature of reality there is
one Non-Dual Reality if that helps. >>Rick: That helps. A few years ago I interviewed a Guru from
Gujarat. I forget his name, evades me, but his fundamental
philosophy seemed to be that you know you are separate from the creation and you are
free and eternal and unbounded and all that but the creation is something other than you
and we bantered that back and forth a little bit but I could sort of never get an acknowledgment
that perhaps you know more fundamentally there is a complete unity and that which appears
separate from you, couldn't possibly be separate from you, because there can't be two ultimate
realities and so on and so forth, but we never quite resolved it, but what would you say
to that. >>Swamiji: I immediately see where that Guru
is coming from, because in a dualistic approach to Vedanta, in the dualistic schools of Vedanta
think of it as a triangle with three, the three vertices would be God and the world
and you, so if they are separate realities you have dualistic Vedanta. So God is an independent separate reality
and you are something separate from God, even ultimately you retain your separateness, and
the world is something separate from you, that's one position. The second position would be a qualified monism
which would mean you seem to be separate but you are actually parts of an organic whole
of an underlying unity, so the unity would be something like the parts of my body hands
and feet and head, they are all separate, different entities, the head is certainly
not the feet and feet are not the hands, but they are parts of one body. So in that same way we are all parts of the
body of God so to say, that's one more approach, so that's not a strict dualism but not strictly
non-dualism either. So it's called Qualified Monism, VishishtAdvaita
and there are many who subscribe to that point of view but to distinguish nondualism from
all of this, nondualism would insist that there is a radical identity not even a unity,
the body, for example, is a unified whole but nondualism says it's not that you are
a part of God, but there is no difference between You and God. The famous equation Tat Tvam Asi, That Thou
Art. Now if you really consider that you'll see
how radical it is, that thou art means if I would translate it, it would mean you are
none other than God which would mean for example you are not a body, you're not an individual
being, you are none other than God, God being defined as the absolute pure being, pure consciousness,
and the reverse too - there is no God apart from you. So I've heard one Swami in the Himalayas put
it in terms which would be shocking for a conventional Hindu that the Vishnu and Narayan
and Shiva, there is no Vishnu and no Shiva and no other God none of the entire pantheon
of different forms of God in Hinduism, none of them are real other than you the absolute,
so You and God are radical identity, not even a unity, so that's nondualism. >>Rick: When I hear you describe these different
flavors of Vedanta and so on I find myself able to agree with all of them even though
they may appear contradictory because they're just sort of different, it's like the old,
you know, blind men feeling the elephant thing you know, they're all right, the elephant
is like a snake, it is like a tree, it is like a wall, but there's the totality of the
elephant is more than all those individual perspectives. >>Swamiji: Absolutely that's a very Hindu
perspective. Yeah, it's been so in India for thousands
of years. There's this statement in the Rig Veda, ekam
sad vipra bahudha vadanti which means the truth is one but the wise speak of it differently. Now this has been a kind of a saving grace
for Hinduism for thousands of years. The common Hindu in a village might not be
able to quote the Sanskrit back to you but that's certainly what he or she feels that
the ultimate truth is one, but its expressions can be many, you can have different forms
of Gods, different forms of the Absolute which explains
the variety of Hindu Gods and Goddesses, different names, different practices, different philosophies,
even something that seems to be apparently so contradictory as Dualism and Non-Dualism. You can affirm both, not at the same time,
but depending upon your spiritual perspective. Here's an interesting story about Hanuman,
the great devotee of Rama. Rama was an incarnation of God, asks Hanuman
what do you think of me, what do you understand about me and Hanuman says when I think of
myself as a body, as Hanuman then you are the Master I am thy servant, you are the Lord
and I am thy servant. When I think of myself as a sentient being
then you are the whole and I am thy part, you're the whole I'm a part of you. And when I think of myself as pure consciousness
then you and I are one and this is my final conclusion, not that one of these three is
my final conclusion, but all of them are my final conclusions. >>Rick: That's nice. I think in this day and age you know modern
physics comes to our rescue because for instance, you know you have a level on which Newtonian
laws are perfectly applicable and predictable and so on and then you have a deeper level
at which those laws no longer apply and that doesn't make the Newtonian level wrong, it
just means it's a particular stratum of creation that has its own laws of nature that govern
it but there are deeper strata which those laws no longer apply. >>Swamiji: Absolutely. For example, many people ask you are nondualists,
but when we go to your main monastery in India or we come to the Vedanta Society we see quite
a lot of practices that seem dualistic. You have pictures, you have songs, and you
have often ritualistic worship, but what has to be understood is the fundamental reality
being nondualistic does not contradict a dualistic experience. So when you learn physics you realize that
the sky is not really blue, there's no real blue color out there, it's an effect of optics
is scattering of light, but when you look up again after reading all that physics you
still see blue, a blue sky and you enjoy it knowing full well it's not blue in the same
way you see this pluralistic universe, men and women and plants and animals and nonliving
things in this vast universe apparently pluralistic and you know full well there is an underlying
oneness to all of it and you enjoy the plurality of expressions of that oneness, it becomes
more beautiful that way. >>Rick: Apparently Shankara said the intellect
imagines duality for the sake of devotion and all the great nondual teachers contemporary
and ancient seemed to have been great devotees as well as being you know extremely articulate
exponents of Advaita. >>Swamiji: Absolutely, if you look at Shankara
himself, the great teacher of nondualism, he wrote so many beautiful hymns to Vishnu
and to Krishna, to the Ganges, and so on that particular verse you are referring to it goes
something like this, bodha prak dvaitam mohay, before enlightenment duality or plurality
can throw you into delusion, it can create delusion, can bind you in samsara, prapte
manishaya, and upon enlightenment, bhakti artham kalpitam dvaitam, the duality conceived
for love, for enjoying bhakti, advaitadapi sundaram is more beautiful more sublime than
nonduality, then that's the attitude of a nondual teacher. >>Rick: That's nice. My former teacher, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi once
said, it's like if you're lying in a bathtub and you're lying still after a while the water
doesn't feel warm anymore but if you slosh around a little bit then you feel the warmth,
so it's sort of the duality kind of stirs up the bliss. >>Swamiji: That's a nice way of putting it,
yes. >>Rick: Yeah, on the point we were discussing
a few minutes ago about these different schools of Vedanta and whether duality is ultimately
one and not, you know if I were speaking to someone who insisted that reality is ultimately
not one I might ask well that which is not ultimate what is that made of, you know I
mean let's say he says the world is not the ultimate, but the world has some kind of intrinsic
ultimate reality to it in addition to the absolute itself having an ultimate reality
to it. Okay, well what is the world made of and then
you have to start boiling it down, as a physicist might do and if you boil it down deep enough
it seems to me you get to the same ground, same ultimate reality. >>Swamiji: True. If you ask a nondualist who insists on the
reality of the absolute, pure being or pure consciousness, but if you ask this question
it's an interesting approach you take. Okay leave the absolute aside for the time
being, but this world we are experiencing what is it made of? If you ask that question, the answer is very
interesting. The preliminary answer is why it's made of
the five elements of sky, air, and fire and water and earth or if you are more modern
than, I don't know how many hundred and fifty or hundred eighteen odd elements in the periodic
table then if you ask further what are those five elements made of or those hundred and
eighteen odd elements made of and Vedantist would say why they are all reducible to Maya,
the inconceivable power of God if you will. What is Maya then? Well ultimately, Maya is nothing different
from the absolute who's powered Maya is and so ultimately the answer would be this seemingly
dualistic universe which seems to be as far from God as possible is actually nothing other
than God. You would not say that it is God, but it's
nothing other than God. There's a very interesting distinction. Mary Hale, one of the disciples of Vivekananda
in the late 19th century, she wrote in a poem to Vivekananda, you have taught us that all
is God and Vivekananda wrote back I have never taught such strange doctrine that all is God. And she said you said it. He said, no, I never said that all is God. God only is, the all is not, which is an important
distinction in nondualism. >>Rick: It is a subtle distinction. I'm not even sure I completely understand
the distinction, maybe you could elaborate a little bit well. >>Swamiji: For example, the best way to understand
it is if we take the example of our dreams and in a dream, I might dream that, while
I'm sleeping safe and sound in my bed I might dream I'm taking a walk here in Central Park
in New York just outside, I can see people and trees and the lake and the sky, so many
entities and yet when I wake up when I see that oh it was a dream I realize all those
people and the sky and all those living and non-living beings and everything, not one
of them was a second independent reality outside my own mind, outside the dreamers mind, exactly
in the same way what Advaita wants to say or claims is that there is this underlying
pure being, pure consciousness, apart from which none of these
manifestations are real, so all of them are in some way expressions or appearances of
the real. They are not a second independent reality. >>Rick: Yeah, looping back a minute to what
we were talking about the elements I think a physicist would say that ultimately all
these hundred-and-something elements can be reduced to up quarks, down quarks and electrons,
that's all they are composed of. And some physicists would go deeper and say
that underlying those there's a sort of a unified field or vacuum state or something
which hasn't any manifest distinctions out of which all the manifest distinctions arise,
so I just want to throw that in. I'm sure Vedanta would say something very
similar. >>Swamiji: You know Rick it's interesting
to compare Vedanta and the latest discoveries of particle physics for example, but I remember
a cautionary word which one of my teachers told me, a very senior Swami in the Ramakrishna
order who now happens to be the president of our order. He was teaching us Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
and we were novices, and as an aside, he threw this at us and he said look nowadays it's
fashionable to compare latest discoveries of particle physics for example with Advaita
Vedanta. I think the safest thing that you could say
is that there are remarkable similarities, remarkable parallels, but don't merge them
yet, because I remember one scientist saying that you are trivializing both, so one has
to be little careful about saying that they are the same. Another perspective here, another senior teacher
of Advaita, traditional teacher, somebody listed to him that maybe if one day the physicists
can come up with a final grand unified theory, one thing to explain everything, then wouldn't
that be non-dualism and the Swami said he used a Hindi word Geda dvaita, it would be
the non-duality of all insentient things, but all this insentient order appears to consciousness
and you would have to integrate all this back to the witnessing consciousness. After all, put it this way very simply, it's
only in the physicists' understanding, in his or her consciousness that he or she is
finally integrating different equations and the understanding comes all of this appearance
is one integrated whole. But that still appears to consciousness. And what Advaita would insist it that consciousness
is prior to all of this. >>Rick: And there's the physicist who say
that too and also there are plenty of physicists who tear their hair out when they hear spiritual
people trying to co-opt their field, you know to explain spirituality or non-dualism but
there are physicists and I've interviewed some who conjecture or posit that consciousness
is the so-called Unified Field and that those who have taken a spiritual approach to knowing
consciousness or knowing that field and those who are taking the approach of physics are
just using different tools to try to get out the same thing. >>Swamiji: In fact, I would interject here
that the recent interest in the so-called hard problem of consciousness, David Chalmers
who is in fact right here in NYU, he is now proposing an idea called panpsychism which
says that the consciousness is fundamental. He says we really cannot solve the hard problem
of consciousness by trying to reduce everything to brain states or states of neurons. We may have to admit finally that consciousness
is fundamental like space, time, matter-energy, consciousness is a fundamental reality of
the universe. Even there that would be very much like Sankhya
philosophy. Still is not non-dualism. Sankhya proposes a dualism of consciousness
and nature but my point here is David Chalmers in an interview he said if you think long
and hard enough about consciousness you either end up being a pansychist, you regard consciousness
as fundamental, you see it cannot be solved in any other way or you go into administration. >>Rick: That's funny. Now there's another term similar to panpsychism
which is panentheism and some people are talking about evolutionary panentheism and as I understand
the term, and I wish I had looked it up before this interview because I didn't know we were
going to talk about, it has to do with the sort of the injection of the idea of intelligence
into the whole matter so that consciousness is not some plain vanilla field devoid of
intelligence and this gets us into a discussion not only of the sort of fundamental nature
of reality but the qualities of that fundamental nature of reality and by extension a discussion
about what God may actually be. >>Swamiji: True. As far as I remember, pantheism that is a
closer idea to Advaita Vedanta than pantheism. Pantheism would say that these tables and
chairs and rocks and what have you, all of these, this is what God is, but it's not exactly
what Vedanta is saying. Vedanta is saying that these are appearances
of the reality which is pure being or pure consciousness. In fact, one of the verses in a text in D?g-D??ya-Viveka
says what is the Universe, and it says the universe is a network of names and forms spread
over pure being, pure consciousness, pure bliss, much like the example is very interesting
much like foam on the surface of the ocean, so that was very evocative. I had heard a talk by Lawrence Krauss who
is some strange person to invoke in a spiritual discussion. He is an out-and-out atheist and he says the
latest ideas of physics, for example, they're talking about the visible universe as quantum
foam. I'm sure physics means something very different
from what Advaitans mean, but the use of the same term, you know the universe is like foam
on the surface of an unseen ocean of being and universe is quantum foam that struck me
as very interesting. >>Rick: Yeah. Atheists are sometimes some of the most interesting
people to listen to but they are really smart ones because you know you just want to sort
of debate them in your mind as you listen to them and see now where is the chink in
their armor. Because there are definitely holes in the
logic. >>Swamiji: I enjoy listening to Christopher
Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins, I enjoyed thoroughly. It's interesting to note Sam Harris in one
of his books waking up he's an out-and-out atheist and I admire his cool logic and his
incisive intelligence. In this book, he says that I still don't believe
in most of religion, most of it as I regard it as superstition and it should be dismissed
as soon as possible, but he points out two traditions which he has investigated closely,
one is the Madhyamaka Buddhism, the philosophy behind Tibetan Buddhism and the other one
is Advaita Vedanta and he says I have to admit that both of these contain a core of truth
which we cannot easily dismiss and he says they contain the same core of truth. They are pointing towards the same thing which
is very interesting. >>Rick: Yeah, he's also an ardent spiritual
practitioner who's spent like years in deep spiritual practice and I sometimes think of
him like a man who has a foot on the dock and a foot in the boat and the boat starting
to slide away, so if he keeps up his practice later it's going to crack his atheism, but
I mean you know and if I were to talk to Sam I would probably say well you know I don't
believe in the same God you don't believe in, but let's really define what we mean by
God here, because he sets up these strawman arguments about you know that conventional
religions definition of God and then shoots those down pretty easily. >>Swamiji: Yes, I regard Advaita Vedanta as
maximally supporting religion. See the difference here is Sam Harris' approach
would be a minimalist approach to religion. Another approach right now is Robert Wright
for example, who is right here in Princeton, whose new book "Why Buddhism is True". I hear it's flying off the shelves in Barnes
& Noble. But that's a minimalistic approach to religion
and good as far as it goes where he says that definitely meditation works, meditation definitely
does work and not only that the Buddhist worldview he says it matches very well with a Darwinian
worldview in fact, and he puts the two together, he's an expert in that so he puts the two
together in his new book. Now, these are what I would call minimalist
approaches to religion where you dismissed with most of religion and try to take a core
of religion which can be naturalized so to say. Advaita Vedanta, on the other hand, provides
you with a foundation for all of religion, so religion is imagined or is understood as
instrumental as a path to ultimate enlightenment so, for example, God in Advaita Vedanta would
be this absolute, existence, consciousness, bliss, your own reality but in a cosmic sense
in association with Maya. The technical definition of God in Advaita
Vedanta is Brahman, the absolute with Maya is God, Brahman the absolute limited to one
body and mind is me or you, but at the foundation, we are one reality. >>Rick: Let's continue on the God topic for
a minute. I've said this on this podcast before but
to me, my understanding and to whatever extent my experience of God is that God is hiding
in plain sight that and speaking of atheists how they can conceive of the universe as being
some kind of random accidental event is incomprehensible, because if you just look closely at it in
any way look at your finger and look at a cell in your finger which is about as complex
as Tokyo and can repair and replicate itself and you have hundred trillion of them and
that's just you and the whole thing continues on like that. I mean there's just this immense intelligence
that's permeating and orchestrating everything and you know that's my concept of God and
I think that very clearly experienceable ultimately. >>Swamiji: True. They do have a tendency to shoot down a strawman. I mean they put up the silliest possible arguments
or the most simplistic positions and then they target that. There is an interesting book by a Christian
theologian of the Eastern Christian Church I think but this gentleman writes in probably
England or USA and the book is God as Being, Consciousness, Bliss. And the names of the chapters are Sat, Chit
and Ananda, pure being, pure consciousness, and pure bliss. And he says this concept is obviously he says
it's borrowed from the Vedanta in India, but he says this is the core idea in all the great
religious traditions of the world in mystical Christianity, in mystical Islam, and so on. And he says this is what the atheist needs
to consider and respond to intelligently, not a sort of laypersons or a folk conception
of God. >>Rick: Yes. It's too easy a target that's all, they're
debating and I've heard conversations with Deepak Chopra trying to go up against some
of these guys and it gets very emotional but they're like talking past each other because
they haven't really gotten to define their terms what they're actually arguing about. >>Swamiji: There's one thing I would like
to mention here is religion comes in two distinct different brands or species if you will permit
the term. It's like this. Some religions or many religions are God-oriented
and some immediately Buddhism comes to mind are actually I won't say self-centered that
sounds bad, it's a self-inquiry based. If you consider the great Vedantic dictum,
That Thou Art, Tat Tvam Asi, that stands for the Ultimate Reality or God and thou stands
for the Individual Being and the ground of that and the ground of thou your reality and
God's reality are one and the same reality. That's what Advaita wants to say but if you
look at the world of spirituality of religion you will find these two distinct approaches. I have seen spiritual seekers, all my life
I have asked them what draws you to this path young men who want to become monks and join
the monastery and I get two kinds of answers, one group says I'm searching for God, very
good, that's one group. And the other group says well God is fine
but I am really interested in Who am I or What Am I, it's an inward search, and if you
look at the bigger picture, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and many varieties of Hinduism
like Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, they are all God-oriented. They're searching for a reality behind this
entire universe that's one approach to religion. The other approach is take something like
Buddhism or Jainism or in Hinduism, you take approaches like Yoga or Sankhya where the
primary inquiry is into the self, what is the reality of the self, they come up with
different language and different answers, but primarily it's inquiry into the self. Do you want me to go on with this stream of
thought, there is interesting observations. >>Rick: Yes, I am listening carefully, and
I am enjoying it, please. >>Swamiji: I do tend to run on with this because
it's one of my favorite themes. >>Rick: I tend to run on my questions, so
I'll try to get in with you. >>Swamiji: Okay. So now both of these approaches, the God-Centered
approach, and the Self-Inquiry based approach, both of them, they have advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage of the God-Centered approach
straightaway is that it begins with faith. You are asked to believe and that's what people
struggle with especially today in the 20th century, 21st century, we struggle with the
possibility of the existence of a deity. So for example in these religions, in Christianity
or in dualistic Hinduism you will find attempts to prove the existence of God. Nobody seriously attempts to prove his or
her own existence. What we are is open to question, but we are
something that is not open to question. It's obvious to us. So it's based on faith and that problem does
not apply to the self-inquiry based approaches where obviously you do exist. Now the advantage of the God-Centered approach
is God if he, she, or it exists it obviously has no problems, is omnipotent, omniscient,
omnipresent, is magnificent if God exists. And on the other hand, I certainly do exist
but that doesn't do me any good because my little existence indubitable existence, certain
existence is beset with all sorts of problems and limitations. So I certainly exist but my existence is miserable
open to suffering and death whereas God if God exists, a dubitable existence, doubtful
existence, but God has no problems at all. Now the beauty of Advaita here is it puts
the two together and overcomes the limitations of each one in a very wonderful way, you see
if Advaita is at all to be taken seriously then our certain existence is the proof for
the existence of God and Gods infinitude removes our limitations. So what Advaita points towards is a certain
and infinite existence. So certain infinitude. It helps you to overcome the doubts associated
with dualistic religion and overcomes the limitations which we perceive about ourselves
because of our identification with body and mind, I am done, so this is this is a very
interesting insight. >>Rick: Yeah, my sense is that people gravitate
toward different paths, devotional or belief-based or this or that based upon their inclinations,
their makeup, how they're wired, the stage of development you know and that all paths
are valid, they're not necessarily all equally efficacious I mean you know the Gita says
because one can perform at one's own Dharma, the lesser in merit is better than the Dharma
of another, but the key phrase there is because one can perform it. So people are attracted to you know something
which resonates with them and maybe, later on, they're attracted to something different. You probably concur with that. >>Swamiji: Absolutely, that's one very important
teaching which we stress at the Vedanta Society that all the approaches are valid. Sri Ramakrishna, Vivekananda's teacher, he
said all religions are true and they are all paths to the same realization. It's not important which particular path you
follow, but you must follow a particular path, something you must follow 'till the very end. It does depend on the inclination. If you look at the God-Centered religions,
you would find that they generally tend to be devotional. They tend to be about temples or churches
or mosques and synagogues and devotional and some sometimes ritualistic oriented towards
bhakti, towards worship and love. On the other hand, if you look at the self-inquiry
based religions if you look at something like Buddhism or Sankhya they tend to be more introspective,
more intellectual, more meditation oriented. Now, this which one is better, as you said
it depends on the mental makeup of the seeker. You would find one more acceptable than the
other. Yes. >>Rick: Also like if you live in Iowa and
you want to fly to some place in India, let's say, Kathmandu, which is not in India, but
let's say you want to fly there. You have to get on a plane first from Cedar
Rapids to Chicago and then maybe you can take a plane from Chicago to Delhi and then Delhi
to somewhere else. No one of those planes is better than the
others, it's just appropriate to each leg of the journey. >>Swamiji: Absolutely. When we talk about the different practices
in Vedanta, Vedanta is primarily the path of knowledge, a path of inquiry-based into
what we are, but the practice of devotion, the practice of meditation, the practice of
selfless action, the yoga's, well known four yoga's of Swami Vivekananda, karma yoga, bhakti
yoga, raja yoga, and Gyan yoga, none of them are optional actually. None of them are dispensable. Each plays an important role. In fact, if you look at the teachings of the
ancient masters of Vedanta, whether it's Shankara, whether it's Ramanuja or Madhva they all taught
different varieties of Vedanta if you will, dualistic, non-dualistic, but all of them
emphasized the importance of knowledge and devotion and meditation and selfless action,
only the order in which they emphasized it and the importance they gave to each one would
differ from teacher to teacher. Yeah. >>Rick: You know how in the Gita Lord Krishna
says when adharma flourishes and dharma is in decay I take birth age after age. Do you kind of acknowledge a cyclical nature
to knowledge that it's lost and crumbles down and everything gets pretty bad and then it's
revived and there's an upsurge and everything gets better and that cycle repeats itself? >>Swamiji: True. The Hindus are big on cycles. (Laughter!) For example, the entire universe is supposed
to go through cycles. So there is creation and there is existence
of the universe and it evolves and changes and finally everything is again sucked back
into the unmanifest, into the inscrutable power of Ishwara or God, but that's not the
end of the story, because again there is creation and this goes on again and again and again
without any end. So within creation, within our universe, things
go through cycles. Empires go through cycles and religions go
through cycles, ups and downs, and so knowledge, the teachings they are given fresh and powerful
and insightful by Masters and then they tend to get overlaid by rituals and dogma and organization
and politics and fanaticism until we might call them social reformers or incarnations
or great teachers who come and teach the core teachings again in their pristine form. That's true. >>Rick: Yeah, there is a story about God and
the devil are walking down the road and God sees something on the ground, picks it up
puts in his pocket and the devil says, "Hey what is that what you picked up?" and God
says, "Oh, it's the truth" and the devil says, "Oh! give it to me; I'll organize it for you". >>Swamiji: Yes. That's true. That's what the devil does. It's no fault of the teachings themselves
or the teachers, it's a human weakness and we have to admit, we have to be open to it,
that these religions we have they are magnificent structures, but they're old they're really,
really old and they have all kinds of encrustations of history over the centuries. I think in fact three things that we should
look to spirituality in the 21st century is, one, the harmony of religions, one thing that
is given religion a bad rep, if you will, is the violence and the arrogance if you will,
that my path is right and everything else is wrong that has to go, that really has to
go, it's high time that we accept and enjoy the truth of all religions. That's one. Second, this contradiction with science that
has to go, if there are things in our religions which contradict accepted and well-understood
teachings of science, discoveries of science then we must be big enough to let those ideas
go or relegate them to be symbolic or stories. We don't have to hold on to them fanatically. And the third thing which religion spirituality
must do is to find itself in harmony with modern values. Democracy, gender equality, human rights,
and so on. So these values are very central to our modern
society and religion must be fully in tune with these. >>Rick: That's great. The astronomer Carl Sagan said something like
when religious people some of them are confronted with scientific understanding that contradicts
their belief many of them protest and in a way they say no, no, my God is a small God
and I want to keep it that way. You know, the Earth is 6,000 years old. The universe couldn't possibly be 13.8 billion
years old. God put fossils in the Himalayas to test our
faith and you know, things like that. Fish fossils, that is. I have this attitude and this is one of my
pet themes, I gave a talk on this a few years ago at the SAND Conference that science and
religion both have something very valuable to share with one another and in sharing,
each will become more complete. I mean religion provides methods of exploration
into deeper realities that are far more sophisticated than any particle accelerator or anything
science has been able to devise and science brings the scientific method and even though
there is all sorts of pettiness and conflict among scientists, in its pure form at least,
the scientific method takes everything somewhat lightly as a hypothesis for exploration rather
than as a belief that you need to adhere to and fight over and so you know taking that
principle anything that any religion has come up with about God, about angels, about I don't
know anything else, I mean, UFOs, whatever you want to consider, interesting hypothesis,
you know, and some hypotheses are much better evidence than others and some are, you know,
pretty sketchy but there is still a possibility they may be true. We need to investigate. >>Swamiji: That's right, in fact going back
to the people who are fundamentalist about their beliefs. I understand their fear. You see, if we depend entirely on a text and
then we are being asked to let go of a particular part of the text, a particular story may be
about creation then the fear is if this thing is wrong the rest could as well be wrong and
then I'm terrified. So the easier option is to be fanatical and
hold on to it and shut my eyes to the evidence. So there it's an emotional reaction, it's
not an intellectual reaction. The answer to that would be the realization
that the religion is experience. Religion is realization. Religion is not belief. When Vivekananda came to the West more than
100 years ago in the World Parliament Religions, one big thing he did was he kept on hammering
on this point that if God exists then I must be able to experience this God. If I have an immortal soul then I must be
able to experience this and know this and realize it and derive benefit from it. It's not just subscribing to a belief. Now if you deal with religion in that faith
then it becomes a strong contender for the truth and you do not always sort of cornered,
you feel cornered by science, you feel much more confident about saying, okay, I think
evolution is a very good idea and it's more or less there is tremendous evidence in favor
of evolution, so I will accept evolution and all my creation stories are just that, they
have got symbolic value maybe. They've got literary value, but I will not
insist, I wouldn't be fanatical about that, so that's what happens. Yeah, I think it was Monier Williams, the
first one who wrote an English dictionary for Sanskrit, he said I find that the ancient
Hindus were Darwinists, a thousand years before Darwin. So they accepted the possibility of evolution. That was sort of built into Hindu thought. >>Rick: Those listening to this interview
might enjoy my interview with Michael Dowd who started out as a kind of a fundamentalist
Christian and now considers, well, he says things very similar to what you've just been
saying that you know in a way science is the new religion and it gives not exclusively
or alone but it brings, enhances our understanding of how great God actually is because it's
showing us such wonders and marvels and it should only increase one's appreciation for
the intelligence which is orchestrating this Universe. >>Swamiji: You know one question I've asked
myself why does this conflict arise? What is this whole thing between science and
religion? And the answer is quite disturbing. The answer is disturbing because science has
truth on its side, you see what science claims is that we proceed by the scientific method,
we are quite open to truth in whatever form it comes. We are evidence-based, we are experiment-based. >>Rick: Based on the principle, it doesn't
always work out. Because some of them are a little bit dogmatic. >>Swamiji: There is a difference between scientifically
proven law or hypothesis which becomes a law which is proven with tremendous evidence and
a scientific materialistic worldview that's a different thing altogether that's something
generated on the basis of whatever scientific knowledge we have and the tendency to reduce
everything to matter and energy and that's the scientific worldview and often the clash
is between the scientific worldview and religion. That's why an experience-based religion, religion
where we take our stand on something that is indubitable that's where I find, for example,
Sam Harris when he talks about an indubitable core of truth in Madhyamaka Buddhism and Advaita
Vedanta. There you find it's so obvious that our real
nature is consciousness. If you, in fact, make an attempt to understand
Advaita Vedanta or even Madhyamaka Buddhism, you begin to see actually that what they are
doing is they are not claiming anything, they're in fact pointing to an evident fact, something
that is always available to us, so there, science will have to come around and maybe
change their paradigm to incorporate that. >>Rick: Yes, I think that in a few hundred
years the distinction between science and religion or science and spirituality will
have disappeared. >>Swamiji: I think sooner than that. >>Rick: Yeah maybe so. I mean things are moving at a fast pace, but
you know it'll just be considered we have different tools in this toolbox and some are
objective means of gaining knowledge. You know the Large Hadron Collider or whatever
and Hubble's telescope and others are subjective means of gaining knowledge and actually the
human nervous system is more sophisticated than any collider or telescope, it's a marvelous
instrument which you know I don't think science fully recognizes the potential of, but which
ancient spiritual traditions have recognized and have made great strides in understanding
the nature of reality through its use. >>Swamiji: I think coming back again to the
hard problem of consciousness that is a really promising area, just imagine 25-30 years ago
scientists were not seriously interested in consciousness at all and now today consciousness
studies is big, it's a multidisciplinary field, papers are being published, books are being
written, conferences being held, and it's a fierce debate that's going on all the time. How the hard problem of consciousness goes,
how is it resolved, or even if it is not resolved how the scientists make sense of why it is
not being resolved that can open up new doors to understanding, because something like Advaita
or Madhyamaka Buddhism or even Sankhya they are very consciousness-based. I think they are poised to contribute a lot
to this debate at this point and this is going on right now in different universities. New openness to these ancient ways of thinking. >>Rick: Yeah, and I would suggest that you
know it's not just an academic issue that is interesting to contemplate or speculate
upon, but it has tremendous societal implications, because if people in larger numbers begin
to realize their true nature and embody that and radiate the effect of that in and through
their lives then that is naturally going to change the whole chemistry of society. If we regard the world as it is now with all
of its problems as a reflection of the sum total of human consciousness or levels of
consciousness then we can imagine a society in which some significant percentage of people
have become enlightened or realized their true nature what impact will that have on
society, I think it will have a marvelously positive impact. >>Swamiji: I absolutely agree with you. In fact even scientists, social science researchers
or psychologists, they know that religious faith even of the conventional sort has many
good effects on the human psyche. It prevents mental illness, it sustains good
family life and many-many positive benefits of religion even conventional religious faith
that is well documented. Now the challenge there is that the science
seems to say or the scientific worldview seems to say, yeah, yeah there are all these benefits
but what good are benefits if they're all derived from a central lie that the God does
not exist at all, so a conventional way of putting religion is open to these charges. Now as you said if it changes into a more
consciousness-based language, the same religious understanding expressed in a more consciousness-based
language as is already available in say Advaita or many Buddhistic approaches in that case
we have something which gives all those benefits and is true to boot, it's also evidently testable
and it stands up to a scientific inquiry or scientific investigation and that would have
tremendous benefits for society. >>Rick: I think scientists are justified in
being critical of a belief based language or belief-based approach which in many cases
has led to very bizarre and unusual beliefs, but if we're talking here about an experientially-based
approach which as you just said the words you used you know verifiable, testable and
so on then you know we're saying you know something which scientists do for a living
and brought into the field of consciousness that's the way they function and they should
be able to appreciate that. >>Swamiji: And advantage of this new interest,
newfound interest in consciousness study is even the concept of verifiability and the
practices' verifiability they are now being stretched. They no longer say that it has to be in an
instrument but the reports of the individual subjects so they'll take your views or your
experiences and turn it into data and that's really good. It doesn't have to be a spike on a particular
scanner. It has to be a report of the subject under
investigation, the first-person report. >>Rick: Yes, the instrument. Now the question is you know how can we standardize
that instrument because you know if you do a scientific study at the end of the study
you list all the instruments you used and how you use them and so on so somebody else
can replicate your study and see if you're right or not, it's a lot more messy when it
comes to spiritual techniques and practices and there's so much individual variation in
our makeups and in what we're actually practicing and so on, it's a much more daunting task
to standardize. >>Swamiji: I think the reason it seems messy
or daunting is because we are taking instruments procedures designed to deal with the objective
world and now we're trying to apply them to the subject. >>Rick: I'm also referring to the human nervous
system as an instrument and the way in which that is used but techniques that are practiced
or the variation in the condition of the instrument from one practitioner to the next, introduces
a lot of variable that are hard to control. >>Swamiji: Complexity is undeniable but the
recent trends are very encouraging, for example when they would do studies on meditators,
how effective meditation is, instead of taking a general population now they understand that
the population of veteran meditators, say like Tibetan Lamas or Himalayan Yogis you
need to take a population like that no matter how small to get at the heart of the effects
of meditation, you know to see really what meditation does, instead of taking a standard
population-wide study. So yes, my point is that because of this interest
in the mind and in consciousness even the scientific method itself is adapting itself
to a somewhat more subjective approach. >>Rick: A couple of questions have come in,
it'll probably make us jump around a little bit in our discussion but let's just ask them,
and then we'll probably get back into a groove of what you and I are doing here. Here's a question from someone named Dwayne,
location not given, Sri Ramakrishna was a practitioner of Tantra as well as Advaita
Vedanta. How do the two traditions complement each
other if at all, one is psychosomatic practice focused on action, and the other is predicated
on using the intellect to get closer to nondual realization. >>Swamiji: Yes, Sri Ramakrishna and Hinduism
in a wider context always recognized that there could be different paths to enlightenment. So say mantra yoga, it uses sound and words,
sacred words repetition of that to take you to the breakthrough which gives you enlightenment. Bhakti yoga, it uses emotions, it uses emotions
of love and adoration to take you to enlightenment. Raja Yoga, it uses the power of concentration
and focus to make the breakthrough. And so, for example, Tantra it uses our own,
as he said psychosomatic instrument especially the drives and instincts instead of suppressing
them you channelize them and sublimate them in the search for the Divine. So all those energies they work for in your
favor in your spiritual quest. Gnana yoga or Advaita Vedanta that uses the
intellect to simplify it in an investigative inquiry into what I am. What Ramakrishna found was that all of them
finally lead to the same enlightenment, the different forms, different language, different
techniques, also he gave his famous Bengali dictum, Yato mat, tato path, which means as
many faiths, so many paths. In fact, that's not even a precise translation,
a more precise translation would be, as many opinions, so many paths to God. So, yes, Ramakrishna practiced a wide variety
of disciplines, Tantra, Vaishnava path of devotion, paths of meditation, the path of
Advaita Vedanta taught to him by the monk Totapuri and so on. Was he the one who actually went through all
the different religions and sort of like indulged or dove into it and became a Muslim for a
while, and a Christian, he kind of like did the full running on every path. Yeah, he, in fact, practiced Christian mysticism
for some time and Islamic mysticism for some time and he found all of them led to the same
enlightenment. And when he would do that he was not eclectic. So when he practiced a Muslim way of prayer,
he removed all the pictures of Hindu Gods and Goddesses, he dressed like a Muslim and
he sort of emptied the bucket as it were and refilled himself with a new way of thinking
and acting. And he came to the same conclusion that all
these paths lead to the same reality. >>Rick: Of course, he was already enlightened
so it's easy for him. >>Swamiji: Right, that's an important thing,
experientially, if it leads you to a breakthrough which is similar through each path though
the paths are themselves very different then standing from that point of view you can say
that they are all valid, you don't have to fight and they are paths, religions are not
ends in themselves, you don't have to fight over them. You know, God is like the central Sun around
which the planets, orbits, the different religions orbit, so that is the importance. Yeah, he did practice Tantra. That's true. >>Rick: Here's another question from Brad
Stephan in Kearney, Nebraska. He asks, "Within the Ramakrishna order is
there a formal process for certifying and/or celebrating when a monastic attains Moksha?" >>Swamiji: No, the answer is no, because in
the advaitic tradition it's problematic if you claim moksha. It's problematic if you claim enlightenment,
except for the great teachers of humanity, the Avatar, the Masters of each path. >>Rick: Probably they need to say, because
it was obvious. Swamiji Yes, and in general the teacher or
the practitioner would be hesitant to claim spiritual enlightenment. I mean for example in our own monastic order
I know that if some monk claims that I'm enlightened and they will say, the reaction will be yeah,
yeah, but you go and cut the vegetables, you have to go to work in the kitchen anyway. Yeah and that's I think a healthy attitude,
because in the Upanishad for example there is a saying that in the Kena Upanishad, the
one who says he knows does not know, the one who says he does not know knows. >>Rick: Yeah. Or he may not know... >>Swamiji: There's a fundamental philosophical
problem involved there. Nisargadatta, I am that, the book, he was
a great enlightened nondualistic teacher in the 20th century. Somebody said to him that you are a knower
of Brahman expecting that he will be pleased and he was a rough man, so he burst out and
he said you are insulting me and this other person was shocked. The knower of Brahman is the highest praise
you can give in India. I said you're a knower of Brahman, how is
that an insult and Nisargadatta said, I am Brahman, I'm not a knower of Brahman and that's
an important point. >>Rick: Yeah. >>Swamiji: I put it this way. It's from some Christian mystic or a Sufi
mystic. The person does not get enlightened. The person does not become free. You become free of the person. For the person to claim enlightenment is therefore
in principle wrong somewhere. >>Rick: And even for someone to say well even
though I know my language is limited and so please forgive me but I have become free of
the person, I've realized my pure essential nature and it's not I who've realized that
it has realized itself and you know you go round and round trying to get the words to
do justice to it, I suppose it would be sort of considered inappropriate for someone even
to proclaim that in your tradition. >>Swamiji: There seem to be no need actually. The whole point is my realization does not
directly help you. I remember there is a nice story I heard from
a monk many decades ago in one of our ashrams. There was this gentleman who was a seeker
and who devoted his whole life to spiritual seeking and he stayed in the ashram till the
end of his life and now he loved going to different monks and finding out about their
life stories and about their attainments and he would come back and tell the abbot of the
monastery, you know I went and saw this Swami, I went and saw this yogi, and he has got this
power and that person has got that vision. One day that Swami, the abbott said to this
seeker, he said, my dear boy you know if everybody in the world were to turn into Ramakrishna,
an incarnation of God maybe, if everybody were to turn into an incarnation of God tomorrow
except you and me, you and I, then at the end of our lives what good it would all that
still be to us if at the end of a life we still remain the same you know and everybody
else is enlightened. It would be a fantastic world to live in,
no doubt about it, but what matters at the end of our lives we are still alone and we
go out with our own enlightenment, our own spiritual progress. Yeah. >>Rick: Was Ramakrishna considered to be an
avatar? >>Swamiji: By some, increasingly after his
death, he was considered to be an avatar by some. He was considered to be a great Saint by many
in Calcutta, people would go to see him and he was considered to be absolutely crazy by
others too. >>Rick: Yeah, I guess that's pretty much far
for the course, for avatars or great Saints. Here's another question that came in from
Francis Bennett, a friend of mine, does absolute nondualism imply or advocate a passive and
apathetic attitude toward all issues in the world like famine, disease, war, etc similar
to the Neo Advaita view and I want to talk to you about Neo Advaita. My feeling is that a qualified nondualism
would be closer to the truth where it still makes perfect sense to be concerned for the
difficult suffering that exists in the world and to do something about it. Could you comment on it? >>Swamiji: That's a very good question and
the straight answer to that would be no, it does not recommend a passivity. It does not imply being passive to human suffering,
but yes and the question is not irrelevant, it has been understood in that way, maybe
by Neo Advaita and by very strict monastic Advaitan's non dualist in ancient India too
and it did lead to a kind of passivity regarding society where your society might be a colony
under a foreign power, there might be illiteracy and famine and disease and backwardness and
superstition and you still might ignore all of that because after all it's an appearance
and the absolute is the reality and you are the absolute after all. Now one must notice that Vivekananda, the
source of our order and the source of a lot of modern Vedanta in fact, he was a staunch
activist, a very strong activist. When he went back to India, he took with him
the message of character building education, of religion. He says I don't believe in a religion which
can't provide a piece of bread to a hungry man here and cannot wipe the tears of the
widow and which promises me heaven afterwards I don't believe in such a religion. When one of our early monks Akhandananda was
criticized by a traditional vedantic scholar, why are you monks going around establishing
schools and hospitals, aren't you supposed to meditate on the Atman and beg for your
food. At the most you're only engagement with society
would be to teach Vedanta. The Swami's reply was fantastic, you know
he wrote a fiery letter. He says the very same Atman you talk about
that appears to me in the form of the hungry man, it appears to me in the form of the illiterates,
the superstitious, the diseased person and I shall not cease to work on their behalf
who are my very own Atman and if for that I have to go to hell, I am resigned to going
to hell a thousand times and that seems to have really changed the Vedantic view in India
itself. You see, now, not just our order but many
of the new orders which have come up in the last 100-150 years it's a kind of renaissance,
a new look at Vedanta, they all are socially engaged and today a typical Hindu in India
if he goes to an ashram one of the questions he would likely ask is what are you doing
for the poor, for the sick, are you doing something for society? Now that's a big change you know in a hundred
and hundred fifty years. Yeah. >>Rick: That's nice. There's a nice article which I just reread
recently by my friend Timothy Conway, whom I've interviewed a couple of times where it's
about the three kind of simultaneously true yet paradoxical levels of nondual reality. It can be broken down in different ways but
he broke it down into three. There's the obvious conventional level where
we have diseases and wars and this and that and all that stuff needs to be dealt with,
we need medicines, we need peace treaties or whatever. Then there's the kind of more Divine level
you could say where all is well and wisely put and everything is divinely orchestrated
in perfect justice it is and then there's the absolute level where nothing ever happened
and you know you could take refuge in any of those three and deny the others but a more
balanced view would be to incorporate all three and to give render unto Caesar what
is Caesar's give each its do in terms of the way you live your life. Nisargadatta whom you just quoted once said
that the ability to appreciate paradox and ambiguity is a characteristic of spiritual
maturity. >>Swamiji: Absolutely. If you want it all neat and ordered you know
you have to give up the truth. The truth usually is complex. One way of looking at it is the Jeevan Mukta,
the enlightened person, it's interesting that there are three categories of this enlightened
person corresponding to the three categories you just spoke about. In one article by Swami Gambhirananda, the
eleventh president of our order, he says how does the enlightened person look upon the
world and he finds three possibilities by looking at actually enlightened people in
the history of religion, one is a complete indifference to the world, so if an enlightened
person is completely indifferent to the world we have to say, we have no right to criticize
that person, that's an attitude and it's a possible attitude and there have been such
people and they have been enlightened, we have to admit that that's a possibility. The second attitude is that person would look
upon the world, would not completely ignore it but it would look upon the world as a play
of God, both good and evil as manifestations of Maya and such people for example there
was a yogi who stayed in the Kali temple of Dakshineshwar when Ramakrishna was there in
the late 19th century and Ramakrishna narrates how the yogi would stay in meditation almost
all day long, but once in a while would come out and look at the world, sky and the river
and the temple and the people and would say how wonderful, how wonderful, and would dance
in joy and go back into his meditation, so these are the crazy people of God, the crazy,
you know they seem mad to us, they look at the world, but they look upon it as a magic
show, and the third category would be those whose hearts melt with love and compassion
for the suffering in the world and they would want to show us the way to enlightenment. They would want to remove our sufferings that's
also a very valid way and the great teachers of religion and spirituality have always belonged
to the third category. >>Rick: So maybe it depends on what your Dharma
is, which of those categories you end up in you know you have different functions to play. >>Swamiji: True. If you look at the story of the Buddha after
his enlightenment, he wondered whether he should go and teach what he has found and
the last temptation I think was you are enlightened, I have no further power over you but then
you go into Nirvana and give up the body and merge into bliss and don't bother about them,
they won't understand what you are saying, but the Buddha luckily decided that some will
understand, so I will go and teach them to remove their suffering and so you have all
the teachings of Buddhism. That's the third category those who become
masters of humanity. >>Rick: Yeah here's a question, this is sort
of reminiscent of something we discussed a few minutes ago, you may not want to answer
this, but this is from Jaime Rivera in Lakewood, New Jersey. He asks would Swami comment on how he experiences
life. Do you experience life as awareness, do you
feel as a separate, do you feel yourself to be a separate person. >>Swamiji: I think the answer would be yes,
more and more, the more and more I investigate Vedanta and I stay with this I don't even
see it as a great achievement. I begin to see it more and more as a statement
of fact that it's true for all of us for you and me and every other being on this world
that we are this consciousness and we experience ourselves as limited individuals experiencing
a world but behind both the individual and the world that individual experiences underneath
or the ground of both is this awareness and it's constantly available to us. You don't even have to become that, you just
have to acknowledge that or own up to it, recognize that. So basically there are two stages, one is
when you become more and more alive to the very possibility of such a thing that the
absolute is right here, right now, and it is you yourself that stage one and the stage
two is what I call the shifting of the I, when I say I it automatically refers to this
thing when you become aware of that background awareness then instead of saying it's a background
awareness say I am that looking upon this then the body mind becomes this and then finally
the third stage would be to integrate the entire appearance the world itself into this
background awareness. The first stage, the possibility of Brahman,
the absolute. The second stage that I am that Brahman. And third stages so is everybody and everything
else. And this I don't see it as something to be
achieved, something particularly great either, the sooner I do it, the better for me and
everybody else. >>Rick: Yeah. Interesting, those stages you just mentioned
because Maharishi used to talk this way too. Well, firstly he would say, okay, meditation
you experience Turiya, pure consciousness, and then through repeated exposure to that
it eventually gets stabilized and is maintained throughout waking, dreaming, and sleeping
and yet the world is seen as different from that. There's a sort of duality set up in and but
then he said, I won't elaborate too long, but then he said you know eventually the world
which is seen as different one begins to appreciate its essential nature as that and so the difference
kind of melts into a unity where one sees everything in terms of that in terms of the
self, in terms of consciousness. >>Swamiji: Absolutely, perfect I mean this
is exactly the three stages. First, you stumble upon or you discover that
it's real, it's not something I've read about or heard about, it's real, it's available
to me all the time, always was available, is and will be, and it's my real nature, it's
Who I am. So that's the first one. Going to the second stage where the I is shifted
now from the body, mind to what you have discovered and finally everything else body, mind and
the entire universe is sort of resolved back in your understanding, in the way you look
at life into that reality which is your own self which you are. Even the language that myself or that is still
distancing. Let's be bold enough to say I that's the real
meaning of the I. >>Rick: Yeah and that final stage would seem
to really be what Advaita is, because then there's really not two- I mean one can experience
a unified foundation to the universe and yet see the universe as different from that. That's a duality that's not Advaita. >>Swamiji: Exactly. And that relates to what we spoke about at
the beginning, about science beginning to discover, you know like a grand unified theory
or a unity underlying all this appearance but that still would be duality, because that's
an intellectual understanding appearing to the consciousness of the scientist who formulates
that equation or understands that equation. Here it's a real non-duality where there is
no entity apart from you that non dual Brahman. >>Rick: Yeah and that has become a living
reality, not just a concept or an understanding. Yeah, and so speaking of concept and understanding
we alluded briefly to Neo-Advaita recently. Have you run into the whole Neo-Advaita phenomenon? >>Swamiji: That is true. I've read some of the books and thanks to
the internet I have watched some of the sessions. Yes, it has its roots in, I would say, in
Ramana Maharshi and in the 20th century maybe Papaji and Nisargadatta and then a host of
other teachers who learned from them and are now teaching all over the world, yes. >>Rick: Yeah, although I don't know if Ramana
Maharshi and Papaji and Nisargadatta would fully approve of what goes on in the name
of nonduality or even in their name since they're often attributed to be the sources
of inspiration for these teachers but you know there are things that people like that
say such as you know call off the search, you're already the self, no need to seek for
it, no need to make any efforts or engage in any practices. Practices just reinforce the notion of a practicer
and you just realize you're that, you're already enlightened and on and on. Personally I don't resonate with that those
kinds of sayings, I think that they can cause a lot of confusion, maybe they're applicable
and useful for a small percentage of people but you know I think, doesn't matter what
I think, what do you think about it. >>Swamiji: When I see those sessions, well,
let me back up and say first of all those sayings that you are already the self, why
are you meditating, these sayings are actually not new, even if you call them Neo-Advaita,
they go back centuries or millennia, for example the Ashtavakra Gita and the Avadhuta Gita
these are texts of a very radical Advaita and they say things like you're only bondages
is that you're trying to meditate, so things like that, now they are true in a very ultimate
sense. The Mundaka Upanishad, Mandukya Karika, Gaudapada,
the teacher, Shankaracharya teacher says that the ultimate truth is that there is no one
who is bound, there is no one who has been freed, there is no creation and there is no
cessation of creation and this is the final truth. Now is it true or not in a philosophical level,
in a logical sense, in a strictly nondualistic sense, yes, it is true, but now you come down
to the brass tacks, to the practicalities, I have noticed that sometimes it's not helpful. In some of these sessions, I have noticed
the teacher in many cases I sense an opening and an enlightenment there, but when he or
she is trying to communicate it to large numbers of people who are sitting looking at the teacher
quizzically with yearning, with genuine need for this, two things are happening one is
if the teacher has even a little bit of an opening of or grasp of this there is a power
to what he or she is saying, so that power is felt by everybody who's there and they
sense a deep truth here but there is no bridge to the truth, so it's like if I cross over
and there is a narrow little bridge which help me to a chasm or a ravine and then I
cut the bridge and I say come over you don't need the bridge this is the truth, but they
need the bridge and they need things to do, they need the practices to practice, belief
systems to hold on to while at the same time knowing that these are part of the path and
they are not the end, so they should not be mistaken for the end or anything absolute. In fact, if you look at the traditional teachers
of Advaita, Shankara himself, he strongly recommends selfless action, first of all strongly
recommends an ethical life, this is one part of the teaching that's missing. If I am not ethical, if I tell lies, if I
go counter to my own inner sense of values then there itself I have ruined my chances
of further progress. If I keep telling myself, if I keep suffering
from guilt for example then the calmness of mind, the clarity of mind that's required
for a breakthrough in nonduality that will not come. So an ethical foundation, very important. Selfless action, unselfishness very important. Traditional devotion to a deity, it could
be a Christian kind of devotion. Vedanta is very liberal that way. It could be a Muslim kind of devotion or devotion
to Krishna or the Divine Mother whatever, but devotion to God, I have heard traditional
teachers in the Himalayas tell me this, a nondualist can only benefit from bhakti. One of the reasons is on the path of nondualism
understanding is not so difficult, if you persist with this very soon a kind of intellectual
clarity comes. Vivekananda himself said this is the direct
path he said, the path of knowledge, but many people come to an understanding in this path,
few people realize. The reason is our affections and emotions
and desires are all directed towards this pluralistic dualistic world. These have to be purified, collected, and
focused to on our search and Bhakti is a very powerful way of doing that. It cleanses the heart and focuses our love
and our desire Godward and then the path becomes much easier, otherwise what happens is the
brain, the intellect agrees yes there is such a thing as pure consciousness and yes in a
real sense I am that, but the mind rebels and the body rebels and the emotions rebel. If there is an unpurified body, mind structure
which has not gone through rigorous sadhana it will pull in a different direction. So bhakti-yoga is very useful. Meditation , Raja Yoga, extremely useful. Focus is one thing that we are lacking in
an increasingly distracted world. So meditation is extremely, I would say almost
necessary for knowledge and this is what many - not all -but many Neo Advaita teachers seem
to ignore and those who follow them exclusively they do so at their own peril. I think what happens to many of them is, the
followers, not the teachers is that after some time they end up in a kind of stagnation. I know all the teachings, I can repeat them
and I'm all sort of convinced, but still I am suffering, I'm still in the midst of suffering,
so that's the place they end up in. >>Rick: Yeah. I think what often happens is that an intellectual
understanding is mistaken for realization. In fact, there's a Tibetan saying that you
know don't mistake understanding for realization. And it can become very convincing and hypnotic
when you drill something in your head enough and you can repeat it and everything you think
that's it, I've got it. And I think even with the teachers I think
in some cases you give them more credit than there do, when you're sitting up in front
of a crowd saying this stuff something lights up inside, you become kind of brighter or
more clear than you ordinarily are and so even then you feel like you're teaching from
a kind of an enlightened or awakened state but you know is that really maintained 24/7,
does the rubber really hit the road and is your behavior throughout your life consistent
with that supposed realization. >>Swamiji: That actually explains the reluctance
in traditional monastic orders to claim enlightenment. It's much better to say that I am a seeker
even if a person has enlightenment if that person says he or she is a seeker all credit
to him or to her. The worst case is the opposite. When a person is not enlightened, but wants
to claim the status of an enlightened master then the disaster begins to unfold. >>Rick: Yeah, I mean it's like a guy running
around saying I'm a king, I'm a king, I am a king, convinces himself that he's a king,
he's still begging on the street, but he's convinced himself and then there's no chance
of ever becoming a king because he thinks he already is one. >>Swamiji: Right. One test I have personally is - has a person
being able to solve his or her own problems. I say that if you are enlightened then you
don't have a right to complain. >>Rick: And by solve it's not to say I mean
Ramakrishna and Ramana Maharshi both died of cancer, it's not to say that they solved
that, but they solved it in the sense that they realized themselves as something untouchable
by that. >>Swamiji: They realized themselves as transcendent. There is a reality, really important reality
within you which you are which transcends these. These are superficial. These are on the surface. It's interesting that you would mention Ramakrishna's
cancer. There's a story how a young man who later
became the Swami Turiyananda, he comes when Ramakrishna is suffering from a throat cancer,
in great pain and asks him how are you today Sir and Sri Ramakrishna weakly says this hurts,
I can't eat, and this young man - he says, but Sir I see that you are full of bliss and
that is a cruel thing to say to a cancer patient and Ramakrishna bursts out laughing and he
says, Oh! the rascal has caught me, he has seen through me, which means - it's very interesting
- does that mean that he's not suffering from the pain, oh, yes he is, just like any other
cancer patient, but what he has got which other cancer patients do not have is that
he is aware of this deeper dimension to his own being where there is no cancer, no possibility
of disease or decay or death and he knows that's his real identity. >>Rick: A person named Rohit sent me a question
saying - some of the enlightened sages seemed to be active after death, do they get another
subtle body after death and you know what I mean by that, I mean you hear all these
stories of various Masters like Jesus or Ramana or various others coming to people and you
know interceding, in many cases the person has never even heard of that person. I've spoken people who had never heard of
Ramana and Ramana comes to them and then years later they see a book and has his picture
and that's the guy that I saw, you know, so what's going on there. Your opinion. >>Swamiji: I believe that's possible. The traditional idea in Vedanta, Advaita Vedanta
is the moment you are enlightened that's the end of the game. As long as this body persists, you remain
as an enlightened person, Jeevan Mukta, living while free and when this particular body dies
you don't have any more karma which will produce new bodies. Nature basically brings the game to an end
as far as you are concerned, because that's the whole purpose of the game of nature to
make you enlightened, but in the less strict versions of Vedanta, I would say the dualistic,
more dualistic versions of Vedanta there are any number of stories and teachings about
Masters who choose to retain their individuality so that they can go on guiding humanity for
centuries to come. And I do believe that. And that does not contradict strict nondualism
also, because strict nondualism has these tears of reality. There is absolute paramarthica reality where
Brahman alone is real and there is Vyavaharik reality, a relative plane of reality where
you admit God, you admit the Saints of God, you admit reincarnation and the possibility
of an enlightened Master continuing even after the death of one physical body in subtle bodies
for a long period of time and guiding disciples and seekers all over the world. Certainly, I think that's quite possible. >>Rick: Yes, apparently someone once said
to Ramana Maharshi that he told him about the notion of what is that Buddhist thing,
the Bodhisattva vow where you're gonna keep coming back till all sentient beings are realized
and Ramana laughed and he said it's like someone saying I'm not gonna stop dreaming until everybody
else stops dreaming. >>Swamiji: That's one perspective, definitely,
that's a very strict nondualistic perspective and yet Ramana Maharishi in other moods you
would see was full of compassion, even gave bhakti teachings to some people who he felt
that they would benefit from that and as you said Ramana has appeared to others it might
not be the individual Ramana because Ramana never thought of himself as an individual
once he got enlightenment. So it could be something in the cosmic mind
where such names and forms like Jesus or Ramana or Ramakrishna or Krishna are conduits for
spiritual wisdom. So the same teaching might appear through
these forms to certain seekers. The important thing there would be to take
the teaching and practice and become enlightened oneself. That's the really important thing. >>Rick: Yeah, so what you said about the cosmic
mind. So it may be that there's actually nothing
left of the being we referred to as Ramana when he was in a body but the cosmic mind
creates a projection or an image a hologram of someone who really looks like Ramana in
order to have a certain teaching effect on the people who see it. >>Swamiji: Quite possible, and our whole question
arises because of a fundamental misconception on our part. When we say Ramana, we mean this person sitting
blissfully in a cave, the pictures that we have seen, but that's not how Ramana sees
himself. Ramana completely sees himself as one ocean
of existence, consciousness and bliss. So we now have this question, so this person
is Ramana, after the death of this body will this person persist, forgetting that this
person does not exist even now in that body, it's difficult for us to grasp. We have the concept of an enlightened person
whereas the enlightened person himself or herself would not consider that I am an enlightened
individual being, I'm one with Brahman. >>Rick: Yeah. I guess to pursue it a little bit further,
so we say let's say this person doesn't exist. Now in Ramana's case we might say well his
body exists in a sort of a nithya kind of way, as a dependent, it's an appearance, and
so even though ultimately it doesn't exist because nothing ever manifested and all that,
but so could it be that even after enlightenment just as the body apparently at least continues
to exist there's some kind of nugget, some kind of essence of individuality which makes
that ultimate reality, a living reality, Lesha Vidya concept and that continues to exist
in an individuated form as a vehicle through which that enlightened consciousness can continue
to function even if the physical body drops off and I realize this is all kind of speculative,
but I think.. >>Swamiji: Absolutely. What you are saying it tallies well with traditional
Advaitic account of how is an enlightened Master possible, because the moment you are
enlightened all your karma is destroyed. I mean backing up a little bit, the idea in
Vedanta is these bodies are produced by my past Karma. I'm an individual sentient being right now
under ignorance. I don't know my real nature is Brahman and
I have gone through many lives, generated a lot of karma and those Karmas keep producing
these bodies. Now enlightenment is supposed to wipe out
all these Karmas. If Karmas are wiped out then there'll be no
further bodies, but then the question arises how is Ramana's body persisting even now after
enlightenment. So to answer this question, the lesha vidya,
which you mentioned this theory, it's a kind of speculation, the kind of sort of philosophical
back calculation came up. >>Rick: Define the term, just for people to
understand what that term means. >>Swamiji: Okay. If enlightenment removes ignorance and all
Karma is generated from ignorance, so ignorance is gone, you realize you are this infinite
ocean of being and consciousness, you have no more karma, no more ignorance then how
does one body the one you are existing in, how does that continue that you die immediately,
because this body if you remember the background philosophy, this body is fuelled by my past
Karma. If all karma, past and future are wiped out
then this body should die, but that would be very strange. In that case enlightenment would be a tantamount
to suicide. I mean if you are enlightened, you have to
die that would not be very attractive at all, not only that what Advaita would say is that
it leads to the serious problem that if enlightenment leads to immediate death of the body then
all those who are living and not fully enlightened, so no teacher would be a fully enlightened
teacher then you would run out of teachers very fast, so to explain all this they said
that - the example they used is that all ignorance and all Karmas are destroyed except the one
which is already giving results right now and the example they used is, here is the
bowman shooting arrows and suddenly he decides not to shoot anymore, so he can throw away
all the arrows in the quiver. He can even put down the arrow which he was
putting on the bow, but the one which he has released and which is flying towards the target,
he can't do anything about that, so that persists. In the same way, this particular body which
has karma activated into this particular life this will continue to give results and the
body will live for its natural term and the enlightened person lives on as an enlightened
person, he lives on as a Jeevan Mukta, that's the traditional explanation. It explains how enlightened Gurus are possible
and why the body does not die and so on so forth, but Shankaracharya in his text Aparokshanubhuti
there he contradicts this flat-out. He says this is an explanation given to us
because of our fundamental mistake we see the body and we want an explanation for that,
but he says there is no continuation of past Karma. Why? First of all you as Brahman, we were never
under the influence of karma, when you become enlightened, you see the general way we understand
enlightenment is oh! I was an individual sentient being going through
many lives and deaths now I realize I am Brahman, I have no further lives, no further births,
this is the idea of enlightenment. Shankaracharya says, it is wrong. This is not what happens. When you wake up to your reality, you realize
you had never born, there were no past lives and there will be no further life. There is not even this one life, you are Brahman
and everything is a manifestation of Brahman. If that so there is no karma either and so
the whole theory of some part of karma living, staying behind to fill the body of the enlightened
person that falls down. So what is the explanation. The explanation is that from the point of
view of Brahman, all this world including the body of the enlightened person, they are
all Maya, they're all appearances, they were appearances and they continue to be appearances. It's not that a real body mind exists along
with the realization that I am Brahman that would be dualism. >>Rick: Yeah, so you know from the Shankara's
perspective that you just articulated you know nothing ever happened, there is no universe,
there is no body, nothing, it's just all Brahman and we have again foam on the surface appearing
to be something, but it has no substantial reality and as I understand it you know the
term mithya kind of relates to this where you have pots and they're made of clay and
you know you could say there's only clay, there are no pots, and yet in an apparent
more conditional, more expressed way you appear to have pots, you can put beans in them or
water, use them as drums or you know whatever so and even though that's not ultimately true
it's kind of relatively true and to just completely dismiss it again seems to be a little bit
too much not all-encompassing, too much like taking refuge in one level of reality to the
exclusion of the others. >>Swamiji: You're right and Shankara does
not do that. In fact, Shankara fully admits the importance
and the value of a relative reality if I might call it so. In Advaita Vedanta this is fully recognized,
at least three tiers of reality. The really real absolute which is Brahman
and the relatively real, the transactionally real, the empirically real, which is where
you are Rick and I am the Swami and we have the computer and we are talking to each other,
here is a world, all this is admitted by Shankara. He says in this world of relative reality
we follow morality, follow religion, follow all the codes of conduct and it's important,
because your whole Vedantic quest starts from this level, you don't start with Brahman. And he talks even of a third level of reality,
a lower level of reality which we might call illusion and dream and error which is also
experience. When you see a snake in a rope, it's not a
snake but you did see something. When you see a dream, you wake up and say
oh it didn't happen, but you did see the dream even if it's only a dream. So three levels of reality. Pratibhasika, which literally means illusion
or appearance. Vyavaharika, which means transactional or
empirical or relative. And paramarthika which means the absolute. So the relative level is fully admitted by
the traditional nondual teachers. In fact I'll cross over to the other side
to Mahayana Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, the great Nagarjuna who is at the heart of the
madhyamaka philosophy. In one of his verses in the Mulamadhyamakakarika,
he says there are two levels of reality and the Buddha have taught two levels of truth. And he says paramarthika and samvriti. Paramarthika means absolute. Samvriti means the empirical or relative. Now, he says samvriti manashrutya paramarthikam
na dhikam yete, without taking refuge in the relative truth one cannot realize the absolute
truth. So he admits the value of the relative truth. He would say it's empty and Shankaracharya
would say it is mithya, it is ultimately false, but it has value in use. Like you can store water or milk in a pot,
though its clay only. >>Rick: Yeah, so without taking refuge in
the relative truth you cannot realize the absolute truth, you just said, and as you
said that the way I interpreted it was that you have to sort of give appropriate attention
and care to your relative life and your relative faculties if they're going to serve you as
vehicles for realization of the absolute truth. In other words, if you don't eat or if you
just totally you know do whatever that damages your nervous system and pollutes your mind
and so on then and you say to yourself doesn't matter because it's all Maya then you're not
going to realize the absolute truth is that the implication of that statement. >>Swamiji: Absolutely, the relative world
we inhabit is extremely valuable for spiritual life, even for nondual spiritual life. As one of our senior Swamis used to say, don't
abuse the horse you can't dismount from. Don't abuse any horses anyway, but don't abuse
the one you cannot dismount from, that's the body, that's one way of putting it. Another thing is we need to ask ourselves
what we are experiencing right now, right now, if I don't think I'm an enlightened person
what am I experiencing right now. The answer from a student of Vedanta might
be oh you are experiencing the world. This is the world. Meaning somewhere implicit in the mind of
that person is Brahman is something else. That's not true. What you are experiencing in the right now
is the world laced with Brahman, is the world on a foundation of Brahman. You are experiencing world and Brahman together
right now. What Vedanta enables you to do is to separate
the two in your understanding. In fact, Vedanta says what ignorance does,
what Maya does is inside us it hides the reality that we are Atman. We think we are only body, mind. Outside us, it hides the reality that Brahman
is everything. We think it's a world, but both inside and
outside us Brahman is there ever-present, ever presented to us, so right now we are
seeing world plus Brahman. Don't dismiss this, if you dismiss this you're
throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In fact, we can put it this way falsity in
itself is weak, a lie, or an error or falsity in itself is weak. What is deadly, what is lethal is falsity
laced with the truth. What we are experiencing now is Maya on a
foundation of Brahman that's why it seems so real to us. >>Rick: Yeah kind of sounds like the term
disinformation which is often used in political discussions or something there's falsity laced
with the truth which makes it sound credible, but which actually makes it all the more insidious. >>Swamiji: Right, and dangerous, yes, you
must learn to separate the two in your understanding. This experience will still continue even after
Enlightenment. If you have a body and a mind you're going
to open your eyes, you're going to see forms. You've got ears, you're going to hear sounds. If you have mind, you're going to think. You've got a tummy, you're going to feel hungry. But all of this appears as name-and-form and
the background reality is understood to be Brahman. Right now the reality and the name and form
are mixed up so that this seems real. This seems real for a very real reason that
you the reality are present right here, you are lending it reality. >>Rick: So, here's a question from Declan
Cooley from Cracow, Poland. He asks would Swami mind saying something
on Kashmir Shaivism and its relationship to Advaita Vedanta, as this has been a major
influence on me via Rupert Spira and others. Can you recommend good books and authors on
Vedanta? Two separate questions there. >>Swamiji: All right, Kashmir Shaivism is
a tradition philosophical, mystical, spiritual tradition from Kashmir which originated about
1200 or 1400 years ago, the central texts of which are most important is the Shiva Sutras,
then you have texts like the Spanda Karika, Vigyan Bhairava and it's a very powerful,
it's a nondualistic system, so in that sense, it's very similar to Advaita Vedanta. I have seen many nondualist advaitans become
very interested in Kashmir Shaivism. In fact, there was a book by professor Candradhara
?arm? on the nondualist traditions of India and there he included Advaita Vedanta, Kashmir
Shaivism, Vishistha Advaita Vedanta, the Vigyanvad Buddhism, and the Madhyamika Buddhism. So five traditions he included as nondualistic
traditions. Kashmir Shaivism before you plunge into it
if you are coming from a nondualistic, from an advaitic background you need to know the
differences first before you see the similarities. Straight up most important difference I would
say first of all; the world is real in Kashmir Shaivism. Kashmir Shaivism says the ultimate reality
is Para Shiva, the absolute Shiva they call, so Shaivism means teaching, for path of Shiva. So the absolute reality is called Shiva and
the world is a vibration of the consciousness which is Shiva. So being a vibration of Shiva it's real, it's
not maya, it's not an appearance, but it's a manifestation of Shiva and real manifestation
of Shiva. That's one. And the second thing is Brahman is pure consciousness
and existence and bliss in Vedanta. If you can say something you can say this
much but it actually goes beyond that into silence, but in Kashmir Shaivism, it is not
just pure consciousness, it has the ability to be reflexive. It is aware, it is self-aware, that is I am
pure awareness and aware of myself too and that gives it the potential to vibrate and
produce the universe. So prakasha, the word prakasha means light
and it could be a very good way of defining Advaita Vedanta, Brahman, that you are light
itself. Light means not physical light, light of consciousness,
whereas in Kashmir Shaivism the term they use is Prakash Vimarsha. Prakasha is consciousness and Vimarsha is
a reflexive awareness of itself. So these are some fundamental differences
but what is attractive about Kashmir Shaivism is Advaita Vedanta seems to be the path of
knowledge par excellence but Kashmir Shaivism says we can start at different levels depending
upon the seeker. So they speak about four ways. One way is Anupaya, the no-way way where you
are spontaneously awakened, you hear of teachers being spontaneously awakened, something like
Ramana Maharshi for example. He really did not go through a particular
tradition before he became awakened. So that's the way, that's the highest you
can spontaneously become awakened, but it's no use sitting and waiting around for that. So the next one they say is Shambhav Upaya,
the way of Shambhoo or Shiva which is very close to Advaita Vedanta, it's a path of knowledge,
where your own nature as consciousness is investigated and pointed out and you are enlightened. The third one is called Shaktopaya, the way
of Shakti, where you have the importance of meditation, you have the importance of mantras,
the whole science of mantras is developed which really Advaita Vedanta does not go into,
so we have the whole science of mantras and then you have the fourth way, which is Ritualistic
where you are regarded as an individual being, a very common sense practical approach where
all kinds of rituals and practices are recommended so it's a step-by-step a slower approach to
enlightenment, this is very attractive for many seekers where you have a wealth of techniques,
for example, the book Vigyan Bhairava, it gives you a hundred and twelve techniques
of meditation, many of them are very interesting. You know for example we talked about a pot,
imagine a clay pot, now one of the techniques is look into the clay pot and concentrate
on the space in the clay pot and then in your mind dismiss the enclosing pot that's supposed
to make your mind free of conceptions. If you do it intensely enough, it removes
limitations and the conceptions in your mind, making it conceptionless or transcending thought,
like that there are many interesting techniques in Vigyan Bhairava. So that's my take on Kashmir Shaivism. I could go on and on, as you can see I am
not a Kashmir Shaivite, but I'm an enthusiast. >>Rick: Yeah, actually that leads into something
I'd like to discuss in our remaining minutes. We probably won't really have chance to do
justice to it and we'll have to have another talk one of these days. It seems to me that an emphasis on the world
as Maya in a way it doesn't do justice to the beauty of it and the intricacy of it and
the amazing marvelous vast intelligence that seems to be intrinsic to every little bit
of it and you know I alluded to that earlier in terms of my understanding of what God is
that you know God is hiding in plain sight and everything we see is just such a marvelous
play and display of Divine Intelligence that you just dismiss it as total illusion almost
seems disrespectful to God and perhaps unrealistic. And it also implies that the creation is just
sort of a mistake that you want to get out of as quickly as possible as opposed to sort
of a divine play that is profoundly meaningful and purposeful and you know necessary. So that's enough, I mean that's not really
a question, but I'm sure you can respond to those thoughts and just give your perspective. Right. >>Swamiji: In fact, Maya doctrine has been
often misunderstood. A great teacher said this about the Maya doctrine,
it's a methodology, it's a methodology, it has two purposes. The first preliminary purpose is to take your
mind away from the world and plunge it into the inquiry into what you are really, into
the discovery of Brahman that's the first thing, otherwise, if you're too entranced
with this world of names and forms you'll never proceed on that inquiry, number one,
but the deeper meaning of the doctrine of Maya is very interesting. Maya literally means that this, here, right
now this is Brahman. Maya, what does Maya say? Things are not what they seem. This world is an appearance but appearance
of what? of Brahman..the snake is an appearance, appearance of what the rope. If the snake is false and the rope is true,
let me ask you where is the rope? Right where you see the snake. So where is Brahman? Right where you are seeing people and animals
and plants and the world and problems right here, right now this is Brahman. So to say that the world is Maya is also equivalent
to saying that the world is Brahman. In fact, if you did not say it is Maya if
you say this world is real then you would have to have another real thing called Brahman. Right now the doctrine of Maya actually tells
you the presence you are living in that is Brahman. One way it has been put and I think very powerfully
where is God most present and the answer was from a teacher, not in Banaras or in Jerusalem
or Vrindavan or in Mecca, there God is present, no doubt, powerful presence but more than
that God is present here where you are because you are Brahman. When is God most present in heaven after death
or on holy days like Shivaratri or Christmas or Eid, yes, those days are holy and you can
feel the presence of God more in those times but even more than all of those holy days
combined God is most present right now because you are present right now. And in what is God most present? Is it present in the temples or churches or
pictures? Yes, God is present there but God is most
present in you. So most present in you, most present now,
most present here, this is what Maya actually means. >>Rick: And it seems to me when we think about
what we are actually looking at and you know how much science what science has told us
about when you're looking at a flower, the amazing miracle that you're actually seeing
and how a flower operates and all we're looking at this vast incomprehensible intelligence
doing its thing and it seems to me that what that implies is that Brahman quality if as
it were of Brahman is vast infinite intelligence. If we equate Brahman with God, with consciousness,
all those terms equivalent then we're saying that you know Brahman isn't again not some
plain vanilla ultimate reality, but it's just brim full of potentiality and intelligence
and creative potential and so on. Maybe I'm getting more into Kashmir Shaivism
territory than Vedanta, but that's the kind of thinking I resonate with. >>Swamiji: In fact, Advaita Vedanta and its
final analysis does not actually dismiss the world. What Advaita does is it makes you limitless. You see in a dualistic form of thinking, there
is a limit, a boundary, God and World, Sacred and Secular. If both are real then there must be two separate
things. If both are not real, one of them is real,
and other is not then what we consider to be the world is pervaded by this one as you
said one intelligence one existence consciousness bliss. Now you see, if you look at it in a dualistic
way, am I going to be a scientist or a saint? In a dualistic way, you have to be a saint,
because after all if you want to be a spiritual seeker that's the thing to do and the scientist
is something different, because it's a dualistic world, he is of the world and you are of heaven. But if it's nondualistic, you can be a saintly
scientist or a scientific saint. The limits are dissolved. >>Rick: Good. Well, we'd better wrap it up. You have to eat lunch and get over to Princeton. >>Swamiji: Yes, thank you, Rick. >>Rick: I don't want you to speed or your
driver to speed and there's so much more we can talk about. For instance, you inspired me to read the
Ashtavakra Samhita, which I did and took three pages of notes, so we can have another conversation
one of these days and go into that and other things. >>Swamiji: Absolutely, I will look forward
to that. >>Rick: So, let me make a couple of quick
wrap-up points, and then we'll conclude. So those who've been watching or listening
have been watching or listening to an episode of Buddha at the Gas Pump an ongoing series
of conversations with spiritually awakening people. There have been hundreds of them so far and
if you dive into our archives you can check all those out and hopefully God willing there
will be hundreds more. So stay tuned, come to the website if you
like batgap.com, sign up for the email, check out the other menu items and you'll see what
is there to see. So thanks a lot and Swamiji thank you so much,
I really enjoyed this conversation. >>Swamiji: Thank you very much. Thank you. You take care. >>Rick: You too. Have a good day. >>Swamiji: Thank you.